What would it take to convince a climate realist?

By |2015-05-10T22:29:49+00:00May 10th, 2015|Videos|2,107 Comments

2,107 Comments

  1. Brin Jenkins May 11, 2015 at 3:32 AM

    I think he correct. The whole industry seems to be driven by the UN with a mandate to micro manage the whole Worlds Population.

    • DavidAppell May 12, 2015 at 8:57 PM

      Micromanage how? With noncarbon energy, you’ll still plug your toaster into the same outlet.

      • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 4:01 AM

        You obviously have no understanding of ohms law and transmission losses, our lack of any device to store power in GW’s, demand and load, or the economics of power generation.

        • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM

          Why do you care about transmission losses?
          What more do you want besides an outlet to plug your toaster into?

        • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:16 AM

          Do you really think electricity consumers need to know Ohm’s law in order to use the electricity that comes into their home?

          • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 4:26 AM

            No of course not, but one who claims renewables can plug the gap should be.

            • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:35 AM

              Then how is the UN micromanaging the “whole Worlds Population?”

              • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 6:04 AM

                For that you need to understand politics and the move to install a one World order. There is much in Agenda 21 under sustainable living. It has been mooted the Global population needs to be reduced, one thought was 90%.

                Now this is my last correspondence with you because of your hectoring, bullying stance on dissent. I don’t respond well to such impolite ignorance.

                • Ian5 May 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM

                  Brin: have you actually read Agenda 21? The only reference to 90% in the document is in relation to Objective 6.12b) which reads “By 1995, to reduce measles deaths by 95 per cent and reduce measles cases by 90 per cent compared with pre-immunization levels.”

                • Robert May 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM

                  Seems http://www.cfact.org/2015/05/10/what-does-it-take-to-convince-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-2019169946 it it on the head; nothing testable so try conspiracy theory…..

                • Robert May 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM

                  “one thought was 90%”

                  ” Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.”

                  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite

                • Robert April 5, 2016 at 3:05 PM

                  “….move to install a one World order.”

        • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:17 AM

          In fact, I know plenty of people who use electricity, but don’t known Ohm’s law or the first thing about transmission losses or the economics of power generation.

  2. Dano2 May 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM

    Easy, denialists can show their beliefs have scientific support by busting out testable hypotheses, equations, models, journal articles, robust consensus, scribbles on a napkin.

    Alas, denialists have none of these to support their beliefs.

    Best,

    D

    • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 8:45 AM

      Dano, If I was to agree with you I would be joining a group who are unable to explain the mechanisms involved concerning CO2 being the cause of Global Warming, I would then be part of the great consensus who rely on opinion, but are unable to prove their hypothesis.

      Absolutely meaningless unless you understand, and can show that what you say is possible and logical, can you?

      • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM

        Um, the mechanisms behind CO2 as a GHG were first explained in the 1850s, a Nobel awarded in the 1890s, the chemistry of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere was completed in the 1970s…

        So who knows what you are trying to say here.

        Best,

        D

        • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 1:12 PM

          Please explain why you understand warming to be man made, I have looked and can see no way in which CO2 is responsible. I understand that climate changes, it always has. I also believe in conservation and cutting out waste. But Co2 is water soluble plant food released by heating water. That being so how can it also be the cause of heat?

          I also dispute that our atmosphere acts like a glass green house. The action of heat being radiated infrom the Sun and warming air that circulates to the glass and around is different. It is -40degrees at 38.000 ft over Europe. Mountain tops are always cooler than at ground level, and the air is hot just under the glass of a green house.

          I think we need to know and understand the mechanism, otherwise we are agreeing to a consensus of others who don’t know.

          • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 1:18 PM

            Greenhouse gas. Look it up.

            Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet would be an ice ball with maybe some slush around the equator.

            You’ll learn this in 10th-11th grade science/physics. Good luck and take your prereqs in 9th-10th grade so you can take physics.

            Best,

            D

            • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM

              I explain everything I understand and not give links to others opinions.

              Co2 is the most soluble of all gases, the colder the water the more CO2 is held.

              Taking two glasses of water put one in your fridge and the other in a warm place. Within a few mins bubbles appear in the warming glass. Dissolved gas is released, by heat. The one in the fridge has no bubbles retaining its gas. We have shown the cause heat, and the effect of heating gas is released. You say gas can be a cause of heating? This reverses a cause and its effect, if you understand how this can be, please explain how this happens?

              • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 4:50 PM

                Let us know when you get to your very first physics class.

                Best,

                D

                • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM

                  Troll

                  • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 5:21 PM

                    No need to lash out when someone points out your utter lack of knowledge or education on a comment you made.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 5:53 PM

                      You said it was easy to convince a critic but behaved like a troll. You have not explained your understanding only insulted me. So be it!

                    • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 6:01 PM

                      You said it was easy to convince a critic

                      No I didn’t. I stated:

                      denialists can show their beliefs have scientific support by busting out testable hypotheses, equations, models, journal articles, robust consensus, scribbles on a napkin.

                      Alas, denialists have none of these to support their beliefs.

                      And you cannot show science supports your beliefs, as we see.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins May 12, 2015 at 6:12 PM

                      Then explain how exactly you think CO2 causes Global Warming. What is the mechanism that allows heat in but not out of the atmosphere? Simple question but will you answer?

                    • Dano2 May 12, 2015 at 6:27 PM

                      CO2 is a GHG. And some heat goes out of the atm into space. No GHGs in the atmosphere, and we aren’t here.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:24 PM

                      Fortunately there are several GHGs in the atmosphere, the most potent and common one is H2O, di-hydrogen monoxide.

                      It is that gas which is responsible for 90%+ of the greenhouse effect.

                    • Dano2 December 28, 2015 at 3:31 PM

                      Thanks, I’ll take those points on offer!

                      o Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect [30 points]

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

                    • DavidAppell May 12, 2015 at 8:56 PM

                      Brin: The Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 absorbs it. The CO2 then re-emits that radiation, and some of it goes downward. That warms the surface.

                      It’s this mechanism that keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 C warmer than the sun can make it.

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 3:30 AM

                      David that action has been claimed but any amount involved is minor and will be overridden by the negative feed back of plant growth. Last week I visited Mount Etna which is always bubbling away releasing CO2. The plant growth on the slopes below the tree line is incredible, Sicily is famed for its fertility and this is the blessing its Volcanos bestow. Co2 is locked into plant storage producing both Oxogen and stored energy as you know. Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should. I’m not aware of CO2 Scilly’s concentrations being monitored, but I suspect they must be.

                      The Venus CO2 mechanism is described in the Planke effect (I think thats the spelling) This was demonstrated, but the temperature was seemingly cherry red on Venus. Far hotter, and the effect is not apparent at lower temperatures it seems. Climate changes plotted from reconstructed data, overlaid by Sun spot activity suggests the peaks and troughs co-incide, I understand Sunspot activity is only a relatively recent study, I met a Physicist in California in the late 1970’s researching this. Climate change I believe to be entirely Solar driven and directly so.

                      Our atmosphere acts as an insulation blanket, with increased cloud cover (water vapor) the planets temp drops dramatically and swiftly. As a cloud clears the suns rays warm the surface quickly. Insulation works both ways stopping incoming radiation and re-radadiation.

                      To convince me would require a credible explanation by some real person who knows the mechanism, not links.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:33 AM

                      Specify “minor”

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 3:59 AM

                      little

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM

                      Specify “little.” Quantatatively.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM

                      Again, no more than 10%, according to recent peer-reviewed “science”.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:15 PM

                      Prove your claim of 10%. Cite that science.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM

                      No more than 10%, according to recent peer-reviewed “science”.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:15 PM

                      Prove it.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:35 AM

                      What exactly do you mean by “by the negative feed back of plant growth?”

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 3:58 AM

                      David you don’t understand feedback!

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:06 AM

                      But what do you mean by a “negative feed back of plant growth?”
                      Feedback on what?
                      What is the mechanism?

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 4:24 AM

                      You mean you don’t understand. Why explain to one such as yourself when the only comeback is poor descriptions and insults?

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:27 AM

                      Why can’t you simply explain what you mean?
                      What is a “negative feed back of plant growth?”
                      Feedback on what?
                      Why is it negative?

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:36 AM

                      Feedback on what?
                      Warming? CO2 growth?
                      What?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:30 PM

                      I can’t speak for him, but it is well understood that as the planet warms and CO2 increases, plant growth increases.

                      More plants mean more carbon dioxide sequestered.

                      Not sure that is the negative feedback he was talking about – another is more transpiration, leading to more water vapor, leading to more clouds that reduce the incoming solar energy.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:13 PM

                      Simplistic. Plants need more than CO2 to flourish — they also need the right temperature and precipitation. Climate changes changes both of these.

                      There are no plants on Venus, you’ll note. Why not, if CO2 is so good for plants? Or on Mars?

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:15 PM

                      “…leading to more water vapor, leading to more clouds that reduce the incoming solar energy.”

                      Clouds both reflect sunlight and trap IR. The science is increasingly looking like the net cloud feedback is positive:

                      Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

                      Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

                      “Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
                      Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
                      DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

                      Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

                      Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 5:20 PM

                      What is your point? I’m not going to try to guess….

                    • BigWaveDave May 7, 2016 at 9:40 AM

                      It seems obvious that VooDude is showing that even the IPCC doesn’t agree with you, and even they believe that cool.

                      The IPCC apparently weren’t all that happy with the four estimates they had, since they didn’t average them, but instead picked the one showing the least cooling effect.
                      The other three estimates show three to five times as much net cooling as the estimate they picked.

                    • DavidAppell May 11, 2016 at 5:56 PM

                      When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      So when doesn’t that happen?

                    • VooDude May 12, 2016 at 6:34 PM

                      DA said, “The science is increasingly looking like the net cloud feedback is positive:”

                      The above, refutes that.

                    • DavidAppell May 16, 2016 at 10:14 PM

                      No it doesn’t.

                      Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

                      Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

                      “Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
                      Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
                      DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

                      Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

                      Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

                    • DavidAppell May 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM

                      Since you haven’t rebutted these studies, I take it that you can’t.

                    • VooDude May 17, 2016 at 10:08 AM

                      It takes a lot of reading, DA. Have you read them? …besides the abstract?

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 1:31 PM

                      Plants absorb CO2. Plant’s “work ethic” (NPP) has been going up, 15%-25% … Plants now store more CO2 per season than they used to.

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 2:25 PM

                      Yes, NPP has been going up. So what? Do you mean that plants taking more CO2 out of the air is a negative feedback? The word “feedback” usually means a reaction to the temperature change that causes a secondary change in temperature….. This is a feedback in the carbon cycle, and one that is well known and accounted for in the big climate models.

                    • VooDude April 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM

                      Let’s take a look at the literature, and see …

                      Most models’ simulations (during concentration-driven scenarios) do not include any feedback, from CO2 fertilization of plants, or changes of carbon stored in the oceans, since the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is defined, and fixed, by the scenario.

                      ”Technically, there is no carbon cycle feedback in concentration-driven simulations [CMIP5], since changes in the amount of carbon stored in the ocean and on land do not influence the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

                      ”We note that none of the models considered here, implement a sensitivity of biological production to increasing carbon availability (e.g., a change in organic carbon to nutrients ratio in organic matter) as, for instance, in Oschlies et al. (2008) or Tagliabue et al. (2011) with implications for carbon uptake. Likewise, none of the models implement a sensitivity of calcification to decreasing seawater pH.”

                      Schwinger, Jörg, et al. 2014 “Non-linearity of ocean carbon cycle feedbacks in CMIP5 earth system models.” Journal of Climate

                      http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/filea

                      ”The future of the land carbon cycle is significantly more uncertain, even for a given RCP scenario. There is no overall agreement across models on the sign of the land carbon sink by the end of the 21st century, …”

                      They cannot even agree on the polarity, being a plus, or a minus, let alone the magnitude of the land carbon sink. Scientists disagree on whether the land will emit carbon dioxide, or store it.

                      Friedlingstein, Pierre, et al. 2014 “Historical and future land carbon cycle, results from the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts.

                      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/

                    • DavidAppell April 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

                      You are a bamboozler. You try to fool everyone with links and italics and bold fonts. Yet ever time I’ve looked into one of your links I find that you either misrepresented the paper or failed to provide complete info, and in no cases do the papers disprove that the sun isn’t responsible for modern warming.

                      You can probably fool some of the ill-informed. You can’t fool me or anyone who knows the science and can read scientific papers for themselves.

                    • VooDude April 7, 2016 at 12:47 PM

                      Well, come back with specifics. A general taint of ” You try to fool everyone…” or “I find that you either misrepresented the paper …” aren’t detailed enough to rebut.
                      … wait, WHAT??
                      IS THAT AN ADMISSION … that you have not read the paper that I cited, before?
                      “Yet ever time I’ve looked into one of your links…” Ha! You’ve never read the paper before. You’re not familiar with the subject, unless it has been outlined for you by “skeptical science” …

                      “…who knows the science and can read scientific papers for themselves.”
                      But, you don’t “know the science” except for a force-fed viewpoint from “SkS”
                      But, you don’t read the scientific papers … else my words would not surprise you so…

                      “…fool some of the ill-informed. You can’t fool me…”
                      Oh, gee, an exact quote from the authors of the paper, with quote marks and italics, so you won’t be confused … bibliographic citations, mostly with accompanying URLs … how, exactly, is that fooling anyone?

                    • DavidAppell April 7, 2016 at 5:42 PM

                      No, I didn’t read your paper, because I’ve looked at too many others you cited and learned that you’re a bamboozler. You have no credibility.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM

                      “Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should.”

                      This is a very poor understanding of how climate change works.
                      What is the temperature trend in Sicily?

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 4:29 AM

                      Look it up, I lost interest in corresponding with such a rude and ignorant assailant. This is a blog where ideas are discussed. You treat it like a battle field. GAGS.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:34 AM

                      I think you can’t prove your claim, and don’t like being asked to do so.

                      I see this all the time from climate change deniers — big opinions, until they’re asked to justify them, and then they can’t.

                    • Believer May 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM

                      David is just another one those who get on these blogs so they can have fun arguing. They just use their debate tactics to win an non win able argument.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:31 PM

                      He does love to argue, even when he’s been repeatedly decisively proven wrong.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:38 AM

                      “The Venus CO2 mechanism is described in the Planke effect (I think thats the spelling) This was demonstrated, but the temperature was seemingly cherry red on Venus. Far hotter, and the effect is not apparent at lower temperatures it seems.”

                      This is pure gobbleygook. Gibberish.
                      You clearly don’t understand any of the science at all.
                      And yet you have the audacity to pronounce it wrong.
                      Where do you get such confidence?

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 3:57 AM

                      Well you have not corrected matters with your explanation. You have only attacked and never once explained. Typical of a paid lackey.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:07 AM

                      Stop insinuating I’m a “paid lackey” just because I disagree with you.
                      It’s bad form, and does nothing to bolster your argument.

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM

                      Ok, your just a shouter with little ability to debate or explain. Thanks for you illustrations.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:27 AM

                      I’ve explained far more than you have.
                      Why is the basic mechanism of global warming by CO2 wrong?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM

                      Because it is based on false assumptions based on laboratory conditions that don’t exist in the real world. Sure, if our atmosphere was primarily CO2 it would be something – but it’ isn’t, nor is the relatively minuscule increase in atmospheric CO2 anything that we need to worry about.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:12 PM

                      CO2 doesn’t need to be a majority of the atmosphere to have a major effect on climate. In fact, without the pre-industrial level of CO2 the planet wouldn’t even be habitable.

                      Proof of CO2’s heating effect:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da44f12a47b976c480d655d79a0672a36e50a27c57b9c59c0080a39ad0a2303c.gif

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:36 AM

                      I’m just someone who doesn’t take kindly to calling all the scientists wrong, when they have no evidence or understanding to back it up.

                    • Believer May 15, 2015 at 2:43 PM

                      You keep saying that all of the scientists in the world are in agreement when that is just not true, but is just just a debate tactic.

                    • Goldminer May 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM

                      Typical troll tactic, He would never concede that the actual data disproves the computer models, He would never adjust a computer model so it would match reality. Thank god that political AGW trolls don’t provide our daily weather forecasts else we would all be wearing CO2 scrubbers and they would predict Barbecue summers. LoL
                      TO LATE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7157635/Met-Office-to-look-at-more-information-in-forecasts-after-barbecue-summer.html

                    • Dano2 May 15, 2015 at 7:01 PM

                      False, false, false.

                      Compelling.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Goldminer May 15, 2015 at 7:07 PM

                      Was I talking about you ?

                    • Dano2 May 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM

                      I didn’t know that the false assertions about climate and modeling were not about climate and modeling, and instead were actually about a specific person. If so, that would be weird.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM

                      Thank GOD we climate realists are only calling the climate alarmists posing as scientists wrong then!

                    • Steinar Hansen May 18, 2015 at 9:37 PM

                      How many times do you need DavidAppell to explain?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:34 PM

                      Once would be nice.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:39 AM

                      PS: Clouds aren’t water vapor. Water vapor is not clouds.
                      Learn a little bit of science, please.

                    • Johnstoirvin May 16, 2015 at 1:45 PM

                      Appell, you’re either an idiot or a willfully lying troublemaker. Clouds are the visible water vapor in the atmosphere and humidity is the invisible water vapor! And to make it really simple for you so you can understand, rain is a whole bunch of water vapor all in one drop.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:36 PM

                      He is playing semantic games – actually though clouds are CONDENSED water vapor (hence no longer water vapor) but I’m not arguing with you, just pointing out the tiny, insignificant flaw that he and the other climate alarmists here are capitalizing on. Water vapor is invisible, for the most part. Condensed water vapor, in the form of clouds, isn’t.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 1:29 PM

                      Clouds aren’t water vapour … water vapour is not clouds…
                      Yet water vapour totally dominates, as a greenhouse gas, over CO2, and Clouds thermostatically regulate the planet’s temperature.

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 2:27 PM

                      Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. That is, its concentration in the atmosphere doesn’t change, unless the temperature changes first. Then water vapor adjusts accordingly. For AGW, it’s a strong positive feedback, because the increase with temperature is exponential.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:38 PM

                      And yet, it is a strong NEGATIVE feedback, as there is no runaway greenhouse effect as their would have to be were your ridiculous claims correct. Water vapor contributes both positive and negative feebacks, but the net effect, clearly, since the temperature remains relatively stable, is a negative, self-limiting one.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:09 PM

                      Wrong. The water vapor feedback is strongly positive.

                      The Earth isn’t close enough to the Sun to undergo a runaway greenhouse effect. Though that will happen in several hundred million years.

                    • Bodhisattva May 3, 2016 at 11:38 AM

                      So you’re claiming that those who cited the warming that came along with the super El Niño, that caused them to say that 2015 was the hottest year on record so far, were lying?

                      I mean, if so you’re probably right – I doubt it was the hottest year, but you’re sending mixed messages here. You’re coming off like someone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      Plus you didn’t read what I posted. Here, let’s review:

                      Water vapor contributes both positive and negative feebacks, but the net effect, clearly, since the temperature remains relatively stable, is a negative, self-limiting one.

                      When you bother to review all the physical processes that occur with increased evaporation, you get an idea why, even though it is the most powerful, most effective, most important greenhouse gas, water vapor also acts to REDUCE warming.

                      But in answer to your question, “Where is the water vapor feedback”, note that the “warm” period ended and a “cold” period set in as the negative effects of the water vapor eventually overwhelmed the positive effects.

                      Do you need me to explain what those effects are, or do you think you can figure some of them out for yourself?

                    • Bodhisattva May 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM

                      I agree with your analysis… and agree DavidAppell really doesn’t have a clue, despite his silly assertions to the contrary.

                    • Bodhisattva May 3, 2016 at 12:02 PM

                      Clouds are condensed water vapor, a strong NEGATIVE feedback, as you and I both seem to know. Warming does produce more evaporation – evaporation is a process that transports a great deal of heat right past all that waiting CO2, the water vapor condenses (releasing the heat) and forms clouds or precipitation…

                    • BigWaveDave May 4, 2016 at 7:44 PM

                      Clouds are visible because they contain drops or droplets of liquid water, or crystals, flakes or hail stones of solid water.

                      Clouds are capable of absorbing a radiation from a broad spectrum, both from insolation, and from other parts of the atmosphere or surface. The radiation they emit depends on their temperature,

                      The latent heats of evaporation and sublimation are enormous compared with the specific heats of ice, water, steam (aka water vapor) and atmospheric gas.

                      This allows clouds to absorb or emit radiation for relatively long durations without appreciably changing temperature.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:35 PM

                      Clouds are condensed water vapor – they are formed from water vapor that has transported prodigious amounts of heat right past all that waiting CO2 – why are you engaging in such ridiculous claims?

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:10 PM

                      No, clouds are not water vapor, and water vapor isn’t clouds.

                      Water vapor is a gas. Clouds are particulates on nucleating particles.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:40 AM

                      “Climate change I believe to be entirely Solar driven and directly so.”

                      Are you aware the amount of energy we receive from the Sun has been decreasing since 1950?

                      How can that cause warming?

                    • Goldminer May 15, 2015 at 6:35 PM

                      So you have solved The theory of everything. And how did you measure that warming, With Mann made hockey sticks.

                    • Dano2 May 15, 2015 at 6:40 PM

                      Mann totem!

                      Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM

                      Mann v Steyn

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM

                      The ironic thing is that anthropogenic global warming is indeed “Mann” made!

                    • DavidAppell May 15, 2015 at 9:22 PM

                      What problem with hockey sticks. It’s settled science.

                    • Goldminer May 15, 2015 at 9:35 PM

                      IPCC political science agreed.

                    • DavidAppell May 15, 2015 at 9:54 PM

                      The IPCC doesn’t do science. You didn’t know that, did you?

                    • Goldminer May 15, 2015 at 10:09 PM

                      The IPCC claim the right to implement global CO2 emission targets based on their version of science consensus that fails to describe climate reality. I know that.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM

                      You’re just figuring that out?

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:01 PM

                      I’ve known that all along. Sorry you did not.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 1:24 PM

                      Josh again

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM

                      Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:

                      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

                      “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
                      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

                      A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:

                      “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
                      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

                      Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:

                      “Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:47 PM

                      Junk science that just won’t die.

                      When your peers doing the review are an echo chamber it simply reveals the flaws inherent in the peer-review system.

                      http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

                      When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

                      http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37798/title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

                      Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.

                      And, hilariously, this:

                      Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper passes peer review, now awaiting publication date.

                      Checking in with sources inside in the Ketchum camp, we were able to confirm from multiple persons that the paper is finished and has finally passed peer review. Now all Ketchum is waiting for is a publication date, and she has no idea when that is coming. This is great news!

                      One of the unethical things revealed in the climategate email release was that those involved were plotting to, and deliberately did, pervert the peer review system to prevent perfectly valid papers, that they simply did not like, from being published.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM

                      Bigfoot??? Fluff.

                      The hockey stick has been replicated and reproduced many times now, some using independent mathemathical methods.

                      This makes it a strong result — far stronger than most.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:35 PM

                      Cartoons don’t trump peer reviewed science….

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM

                      Yep, settled as a fraud, which is why you won’t find it in the latest IPCC report, after so many years as a staple there!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:06 PM

                      Wrong. You need to read the 5AR WG1 more carefully. Mann’s work is prominent throughout its chapter 5.

                      See the 5AR WG1 Table 5.A.6. Mann’s work is referred to 4 times there. And, by the abbreviations given in this table, many other times throughout the chapter.

                    • Bodhisattva May 5, 2016 at 4:29 AM

                      Actually, even Mann admits the blade of his “hockey schtick” is broken:

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                      And the IPCC concurs:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                    • DavidAppell May 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM

                      Anyone who understands basic physics knows that the hockey stick is an obvious consequence of our CO2 emissions. The math is trivial.

                    • Bodhisattva May 16, 2016 at 3:37 AM

                      Mann himself, along with a number of other climate scientists, just admitted the blade of the hockey schtick is BROKEN:

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                      “Trivial” is not the word for the math they used. Depending on which math the correct words include “fraudulent” and “obviously wrong”. But this is much more eloquent:

                      http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 16, 2016 at 9:56 PM

                      Marcel: Mann et al’s hockey stick does not extend past about 1960, due to the so-called Divergence Problem. You should have known this.

                      “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
                      tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
                      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

                    • Bodhisattva May 18, 2016 at 5:04 PM

                      Yes, I am WELL AWARE that it was revealed quickly why they did not continue to use the proxies – because the proxies diverged and raised the question of whether they were valid in the first place!

                    • VooDude May 12, 2016 at 6:23 PM

                      Required …

                    • DavidAppell May 16, 2016 at 10:16 PM
                    • VooDude May 16, 2016 at 10:27 PM

                      If you want to make a point, state it… I don’t go chasing URLs.

                    • DavidAppell May 16, 2016 at 11:07 PM

                      The point is very easy to state — it’s made on any one of those links.

                      Or remain ignorant — you’re choice.

                    • DavidAppell May 15, 2015 at 9:22 PM

                      Don’t want to address the decreasing solar intensity?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM

                      Heck no, I’m too busy chopping down entire forests to corner the firewood market during the coming cold times!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 5:58 PM

                      Didn’t think you would respond to a direct question about data.

                      Here’s the data:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/160c85bcab8b1065483c93de3b1a058763ec883f85f98f872d722dbb042fec34.jpg

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 10:07 AM

                      ”The measurements of SOVAP in the summer of 2010, yielded a TSI value of 1362.1W/m^2 with an uncertainty of ±2.4W/m^2 (k=1 ). During the periods of November 2010 and January 2013, the amplitude of the changes in TSI has been of the order of 0.18%, corresponding to a range of about 2.4W/m^2 .”

                      ”The actual absolute value of TSI is still a matter of debate.”

                      Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics

                      http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abdanour_Irbah/publication/258032259_SOVAPPicard_a_spaceborne_radiometer_to_measure_the_Total_Solar_Irradiance/links/0deec52c8701272cee000000.pdf

                      Compare Meftah’s measurement of amplitude changes of 2.4W to the ¾W that is the whole of “Global Warming” …

                      ”The radiative output of the Sun was termed the ‘solar constant’ until relatively recently when solar monitoring by satellite experiments revealed that it varies continuously. Commencing with the NIMBUS-7 spacecraft in the late nineteen seventies, … exhibits variations on all time scales – from minutes to decades …”

                      Fröhlich, Claus, and Judith Lean 2004. “Solar radiative output and its variability: evidence and mechanisms.” The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review

                      ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/Publications/A%26ARev_12_273_2004.pdf

                      ”While these observations are sufficiently stable over time to trace solar cycle variability, only about 0.1 % of the overall level, the measurements from the various instruments are offset from one another by a greater margin, reflecting the uncertainty in the absolute radiometry.”

                      ”The direct observation of solar irradiance is a challenging endeavour. At present, the body of spaceborne measurements is still afflicted by uncertainties in the absolute radiometry,…”

                      Herrera, VM Velasco, B. Mendoza, and G. Velasco Herrera 2015. “Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century.” New Astronomy

                      http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera/publication/264671457_Reconstruction_and_prediction_of_the_total_solar_irradiance_From_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_to_the_21st_century/links/53ea7a500cf2dc24b3ccb67c.pdf

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 7:52 PM

                      If you think 1 W/m2 of solar forcing matters, explain why the same amount of forcing from carbon dioxide DOES NOT matter.

                      Hmm?

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 8:33 PM

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa90df92d634565bf18f5cc8968b68543ee9954dd3039ae7c7ae88536663b2ba.jpg

                      So, if, in space, these scientists cannot absolutely measure the TSI closer than about 4W/m^2, and then say, “Obviously, the sun isn’t the cause” when the total calculated imbalance of the earth (¾W/m^2) is eight times smaller than the error bars on the TSI …

                      They are lying to us. There is no way that the TSI measurements tell us that the sun is not causing “Global Warming” … The numbers just don’t add up. Now, I’m not saying the sun is causing, or not causing, what is though of as “Global Warming” … I’m just saying that the scientists can’t find their butts, even if they use both hands, metaphorically speaking of the TSI and ¾W of “warming”.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:58 PM

                      Right — the sun is not responsible for modern warming.

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 9:11 PM

                      Prove that the sun is not the cause. Cite your sources, and their accuracy.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM

                      Easy – the Sun’s irradiance has been on a slowly declining trend since the 1960s.

                      Data and graphs here:
                      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
                      http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

                    • VooDude March 31, 2016 at 9:20 AM

                      Nothing on the accuracy…

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 6:42 PM

                      What is problematic with the “accuracy?”

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM

                      IN 2014, Greg Kopp published: ”…These levels of accuracy and stability are not achieved with the existing SSI instruments (Skupin et al. 2005; Harder et al. 2009), and there is considerable uncertainty in the long-term stabilities of the measurements, leading to disparate conclusions of solar variability, even on solar cycle time scales (Matthes 2011; Lean & DeLand 2012). While perhaps not yet achieving the accuracy or stability requirements for true climate studies, the short duration visible and near-infrared SSI record is proving valuable for short-term solar variability effects on the Earth’s atmosphere…”

                      ”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.”

                      Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” <i<Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc130036-TSI-Climate.pdf

                    • VooDude April 3, 2016 at 4:53 PM

                      Maybe, about ½W/m^2 apparent decrease, since 1960?
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44d3415b1e0e2d61734052917f479805a8d31e1c538f3c0d18c8e1ba88ab77ea.jpg
                      …considering the accuracy (65W/m^2) and stability (13W/m^2 per decade), that is a laughable conclusion.

                      ”SORCE/SOLSTICE … with an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 5% [about 65W/m^2]… The long-term stability in the latest data version is about 1% per year [around 13 W/m^2 per year] ….”

                      But, so it would seem that there may be a ½W of decrease … but there are lots of statements which caution what you can, legitimately, conclude …

                      ”… none of the current solar proxies can properly reconstruct the solar UV irradiance, on all timescales (Dudok de Wit et al. 2009), …”

                      Cessateur, Gaël, et al. 2016 “Solar irradiance observations with PREMOS filter radiometers on the PICARD mission: In-flight performance and data release.” Astronomy and Astrophysics

                      https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01286003/document

                      ”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.”

                      ”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent

                      ”… (PMOD) composite of TSI observations (Fröhlich 2006) and the modelled TSI by Ball et al. (2012) are consistent, within the error bars, with no change between the last three minima.” Not quite what DA claims, from the sixties, but … close.

                      ”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).”

                      Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

                      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

                      ”There have been previous efforts to compile solar irradiance, but it is still uncertain, by how much the spectral, and total solar irradiance changed, on yearly, decadal, and longer time scales.”

                      http://projects.pmodwrc.ch/solid/index.php/research

                      ”SORCE/SOLSTICE … with an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 5% [about 65W/m^2] SORCE/SOLSTICE … cover the spectral regions 115–180nm and 170– 320nm. The long-term stability in the latest data version is about 1% per year [around 13 W/m^2 per year] (M. Snow, personal communication, 2012).”

                      ”SORCE/SIM (Harder et al., 2005a,b) … It achieves an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 2% [about 25 W/m^2]

                      ”Solar UV variability … exceed the variability observed … by a factor of 3–10 depending on wavelength (DeLand and Cebula, 2012; Figs. 2, 4, and 8).”

                      ”ISS/SOLSPEC has been calibrated to an absolute scale at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) using the BB3200pg blackbody radiator (Sperfeld et al., 1998). Over the whole spectral range, SOLSPEC accuracy is within 2 to 3% [about 27 W/m^2 to about 40 W/m^2].”

                      i>”Lee et al. (1995) estimated the absolute accuracy of the Nimbus7/HF instrument to be 0.5% [about 6 to 7 W/m^2] and that of ERBS/ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite/Earth Radi- ation Budget Experiment) 0.2%. [about 2½ W/m^2]

                      ”Fröhlich and Lean (1998) state that the absolute measurements of the early radiometers are uncertain to about 0.4%, which corresponds to 5.5 W/m^2 . ”

                      ”However, the SORCE/TIM experiment proved to be a new outlier. Lawrence et al. (2003) claim an uncertainty of 0.5 W/m^2 , i.e. accurate to 350 ppm. Because SORCE/TIM is 4.5 and 5 W/m^2 below SOHO/VIRGO and ACRIM/ACRIM-III, respectively, the uncertainties given by the instrument teams do not overlap (Kopp and Lean, 2011).”

                      Ermolli et al. 2013 Spectral irradiance and climate Atmos. Chem. Phys

                      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 5:54 PM

                      Wrong, dummy.

                      That chart clearly shows a declining trend in total solar irradiance.

                    • VooDude April 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM

                      Wow, DA, I took a look at the data… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dedf46297ab4e6b6ac5ab4a51d37af782b49935608ec2d8ecd6b49a8c401bd3a.jpg The data, mind you, not their graph. Well, the data is a splice, much like Mann’s hockey schtick …a model’s reconstruction spliced with SOURCE/TIM data (and the model’s output adjusted to match)

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:11 PM

                      You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to do a linear fit to data that clearly have no linearity in them. An undergraduate error.

                      Try this, from LASP:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/160c85bcab8b1065483c93de3b1a058763ec883f85f98f872d722dbb042fec34.jpg

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM

                      If the Sun were causing modern warming, the stratosphere would be warming.

                      Instead, the stratosphere is cooling. Stratospheric cooling is a prediction of the AGW theory.

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:45 PM

                      1. You are confusing the lower stratosphere (which is what RSS and UAH measure) with the stratosphere.
                      2. The effects of ozone loss must be accounted for when looking for stratospheric cooling due to GHGs.

                    • VooDude April 20, 2016 at 10:12 AM

                      Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?

                    • DavidAppell April 20, 2016 at 10:01 PM

                      “Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?”

                      Ramaswamy, V., M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, and G.
                      L. Stenchikov, 2006: Anthropogenic and natural influences in the evolution of
                      lower stratospheric cooling. Science, 311, 1138–1141.

                    • DavidAppell April 20, 2016 at 10:05 PM

                      “Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?”

                      See IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch 10 Fig 10.8.

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:52 PM

                      Suggest you read

                      “A hiatus in the stratosphere?” A.J. Ferraro et al, Nature Climate Change, June 2015, pp 497-498.

                    • VooDude April 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM

                      Suggest that you read: Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

                      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

                      Ermolli, Ilaria, et al. 2013 “Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

                      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

                      Short Quotes

                      ”…even though TSI varies only by about 0.1 % over the solar cycle, larger variations of several percent occur in the UV part of the spectrum,… are important for photochemical processes (e.g. Haigh, 1994). … statistically significant ozone, temperature, and zonal wind solar signals in the stratosphere (Austin et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2010).”

                      ”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.”

                    • DavidAppell April 20, 2016 at 10:19 PM

                      Again you are attempting to hoodwink.

                      From the Conclusions section of Ermolli et al:

                      “Most models nowadays reproduce SSI measurements on short-term timescales fairly well. However, uncertainties in SSI changes still remain on long-term timescales and in the 220–400 nm band, which is of particular interest because of its impact on stratospheric ozone. These modelled or observed variations in the SSI are today used as inputs to CCM simulations that are capable of properly reproducing most aspects of stratospheric heating and point to the existence of a significant impact of solar variability on climate. However, major uncertainties remain in their detailed description, in which nonlinear couplings and regional effects can play an important role.”

                    • VooDude April 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM

                      DA, please note, that, when making a citation, I’m simply referring you to that paper as the source of what I indicated that I found in that paper. It does not mean that I agree with, or even disagree with, the conclusions of the authors. I am, on the other hand, using the weight of the other scientists, in that my opinion is, well, an opinion, but, that opinion is fortified by the authors. I often use this example: I find some Earth Sciences paper from a long, long time ago. The authors are the first, in literature, to have ‘discovered’ that water is wet. I want to add weight to my opinion that ‘water is wet’, so I cite that ancient paper. However, that paper also concludes that the earth is flat, and sitting on the back of a giant turtle. So, from the perspective of the discovery of ‘water is wet’ – the authors deserve the credit of having discovered that, or, just so I can proclaim, ‘water is wet, and I’m not the only person who thinks so!’ … thus adding weight to my opinion. Just because I cite those authors as my source for the discovery that ‘water is wet’ does not also include that I agree, the world is flat. It is a citation, not an endorsement!

                      So, the TSI is the integral of the SSI over the entire spectrum. Let’s say TSI = A+B+Y+Z The TSI doesn’t vary much, but the SSI has parts that do vary, but when “Y” varies up, “Z” varies, but down. So the TSI remains the same … but SSI does vary. As Ermolli states, some of that spectra affects stratospheric ozone, which you just pointed out, has significance. Stay focused, and don’t go off on a rant about how the world is not flat, just because I pointed out that ‘water is wet’.

                    • DavidAppell April 22, 2016 at 12:06 AM

                      The paper you gave said the data uncertainties were too large for any conclusions.

                    • VooDude April 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM

                      The science is certainly not ‘settled’.

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:00 PM

                      The science is certainly settled enough — CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it creates more of a greenhouse effect.

                      Who do you think you are fooling with such denials?

                    • BigWaveDave April 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM

                      If the “science” is settled, what is the science, and what does a greenhouse gas physically do?

                      I’m not fooling. There is no theory supporting the mistaken idea that “greenhouse gasses” determine or explain the surface temperature.

                      There are charlatans promoting the “greenhouse gas” nonsense, and fools who believe them.

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 9:18 PM

                      “…what does a greenhouse gas physically do?”

                      How is it you got to be an expert in physics yet you never understood this basic piece of science?

                    • BigWaveDave April 26, 2016 at 4:36 AM

                      What physics do you think the “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is a basic piece of?

                      You can give no physical explanation of how it is supposed to work other than your non physical assertion that radiation from a cold gas in the sky irradiates and warms warmer gasses and surfaces, but you offer no example where this ever occurs.

                      Ridiculous.

                    • VooDude April 24, 2016 at 6:32 PM

                      There is no proof that increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures. None.
                      I’m surprised that you espouse such a simple explanation for such a complex interaction. Sure, in Tyndall’s brass tube, more CO2 produces more “effect” … the argument, more accurately, could be stated as: “increasing Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s will result in increasing surface temperature, if nothing else changed“. However, nothing remains the same. Things DO change – like cloud cover, and latent heat transport – and the amount of warming theoretically attributable to an increase, above “pre-industrial” CO2 levels is vanishingly small, utterly swamped (lost in the noise) by many other dynamic processes. Water, in all its phases, has the dominant role in shaping our climate.

                      So, CO2 in the real atmosphere might have some “heating” effects, well below 200 ppmv.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25304382ae4643fa7f789fa827da901981b3808dfcaafccc86ea75e29a45b7c5.jpg In engineering, it is called the law of diminishing returns.

                      Easily demonstrated in a brass tube, as was done by the great experimental physicist John Tyndall, 150 years ago, when he experimentally verified infrared opacity in various gases. However, the gases in Tyndall’s tube did not convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has.

                      Schneider75: “Classical studies of potential CO2 effects on climate were made by Chamberlin (1899), and Arrhenius (1903), and their ideas have given way to a plethora of follow-up studies. Plass (1961, among others) computed the surface temperature response of doubling CO2 with a surface-energy balance calculation. His earlier estimates were sharply contested by Kaplan. (1961 0), who maintained that inclusion of cloudiness would reduce Plass’ estimate considerably. Moller (1963) attempted to reconcile these conflicts, but heightened interest further, by arguing that the atmosphere tends to conserve relative, rather than absolute, humidity. However, all of these authors, though incorporating different radiation models, and atmospheric assumptions, shared one, crucial, assumption [as pointed out by Manabe and Weatherald ]: their surface temperature estimates were based on computations of changes in the surface energy budget, primarily caused by the increased downward IR flux reaching the surface, resulting from increased atmospheric IR opacity, from increased CO2; that is, they computed an equilibrium condition for the earth’s surface, rather than for the earth-atmosphere system as a whole. Manabe and Wetherald showed that none of those authors adequately included, in their surface energy-budgets, the mixing effects of vertical heat transport by atmospheric motions.”
                      Schneider, Stephen H. 1975 “On the carbon dioxide-climate confusion.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

                    • DavidAppell April 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM

                      “There is no proof that increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures. None.”

                      Bull — what you mean is that YOU don’t know the evidence.

                      Try these:

                      “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

                      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

                      Press release for the latter: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
                      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

                    • VooDude April 29, 2016 at 11:00 PM

                      Philipona et al. 2004 – Twelve years ago and nobody has heard of this? For you, DA, I will read it.

                      Feldman 2015: Using a very narrow bandwidth, under exclusive, very specific “clear sky” conditions, this essentially replicates Tyndall’s brass tube, but in the sky. While Feldman does show that increasing CO2 apparently correlates to increased downward long-wave radiation, in the myopic narrow spectrum (~600/cm – ~800/cm). There is no correlation proffered as to surface temperature variations – ie, no proof that the observed increase in downward, longwave, narrow-spectrum radiation caused any heating of anything.

                      As a counter, the work of Dong, Xiquan, Baike Xi, and Patrick Minnis 2006. “Observational evidence of changes in water vapor, clouds, and radiation at the ARM SGP site.” Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027132/full
                      shows, under “all-sky” conditions, using the same kind of AERI ARM equipment, that the downward, long-wave radiation (under a larger consideration of spectrum, 200/cm – 2500/cm),
                      shows a decrease, not an increase.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ead58d5221f57abdbacfcd0134bb8e49f131c8426e1de16dbdc05cafe12d99fe.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7284311bd39f1b54da5654cf20551919fa9f4c3e7880870c2c03fc6d223dac9.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df9cc7bf905b5ed2e3f77ba4f2a4a14a2180e7fc9cc2c114b68135ca013d1185.jpg

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:44 PM

                      Lots of people know of Philipona et al, except the ignorant like you. And there’s no reason to think her conclusions have changed in 12 years.

                      Feldman worked under clear sky conditions. It proves the enhanced greenhouse effect in a spectacular way.

                    • VooDude May 2, 2016 at 11:01 PM

                      Feldman used a myopic bandwidth, and ignored the compensatory effects … Dong 2006 considered the wider spectrum, and included cloudy skies … and the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ went away.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 5:26 PM

                      Feldman et al’s purpose want to analyze compensatory effects (obviously). It was to examine whether CO2’s greenhouse effect is increaseing. It is — and at the rate that models calculate.

                    • VooDude May 2, 2016 at 11:09 PM

                      You, apparently, think nobody has read Philipona 2004, because you’re posting it, all over the ‘net.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 5:23 PM
                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:09 PM
                    • BigWaveDave April 23, 2016 at 8:54 PM

                      So what? I can’t help it if you don’t need proof to believe something. It gets annoying though, when you continue to argue without it.

                    • VooDude April 24, 2016 at 7:04 PM

                      The usual alarmist pap and drivel.

                    • DavidAppell April 22, 2016 at 12:12 AM

                      In the end and above all, climate is a matter of energy conservation. A different SSI but the same TSI doesn’t pump any more energy into the Earth’s system. If that can’t account for the vast majority of this heat increase — the ocean — then the changes in SSI aren’t creating the observed changes.

                      If you think changes in SSI are warming the Earth’s ocean, then prove it.

                    • VooDude April 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM

                      “A different SSI but the same TSI doesn’t pump any more energy into the Earth’s system.”

                      You cannot seriously think that solar short-wave infrared, the visible, the ultraviolet, soft and hard X-rays, and particle showers all interact with Earth’s environment in exactly the same way …

                      If you think changes in SSI does not pump any more energy into the Earth’s system, then you are ignoring the reflectivity of the earth’s albedo, which changes with the incident spectra, particularly in the range above the visible-light band.

                      “…changes in SSI are warming the Earth’s ocean, then prove it.” DA, you’re just going to have to accept that the science is not settled. SSI is not known, within the required accuracy.

                      The vast majority of instruments lofted into space have had radically different spectral responses:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/855d2ebdf06b006cea0f7aed5e04260165f17eac34c354e9a955dd1789f20926.jpg

                      The influence of SSI variations is …potentially… quite large:

                      ”Long-term variations, such as the solar magnetic cycle modulation, have a more marked impact on the shorter wavelengths, especially in the XUV and EUV ranges where the intrinsic variability can reach 100%–1000% as shown in Figure 1.”… ”Solar irradiance in the UV (UltraViolet) range is a key parameter for space climate studies (Lilensten et al. 2008; Mikhailov et al. 2012).” … ”The solar spectral variability in the UV is dynamic, and affects the thermosphere/ionosphere system differently on various time scales.” … ”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.” Barthelemy, Mathieu, and Gaël Cessateur 2014. “Sensitivity of upper atmospheric emissions calculations to solar/stellar UV flux.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      Attempts to reproduce, by proxy, the SSI on earth, have failed:

                      ”… none of the current solar proxies can properly reconstruct the solar UV irradiance, on all timescales (Dudok de Wit et al. 2009), making direct observations of the UV irradiance mandatory for all space weather applications (Lilensten et al. 2008).” Cessateur 2016

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:14 PM

                      Simple: prove that a different SSI is responsible for modern warming — or some part of it.

                      Where is the PROOF?

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:27 PM

                      “DA, you’re just going to have to accept that the science is not settled. SSI is not known, within the required accuracy.”

                      Exactly — you can’t prove anything. You don’t know anything. You’re just blowing smoke.

                      Meanwhile, we DO have a very good understand of GHG forcings.

                      Nothing anyone concludes about solar changes is going to change the GHG forcings….

                    • VooDude April 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM

                      The measurement of SSI is fraught with errors and uncertainties:

                      ”Generally, space instrumentation suffers significantly from degradation and signal contamination, which is particularly severe for instruments devoted to SSI observations (BenMoussa et al. 2013). … the SSI variability over the long-term (i.e. 11-year solar cycle) is highly uncertain … There are indeed conflicting trends … over the whole spectrum (see Yeo et al. 2014, for a review).” Cessateur, Gaël, et al. 2016 “Solar irradiance observations with PREMOS filter radiometers on the PICARD mission: In-flight performance and data release.” Astronomy and Astrophysics

                      ”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.” … ”While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.””While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).” Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

                      ”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.””…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…” Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      … levels of accuracy and stability are not achieved with the existing SSI instruments (Skupin et al. 2005; Harder et al. 2009), and there is considerable uncertainty in the long-term stabilities of the measurements, leading to disparate conclusions of solar variability, even on solar cycle time scales (Matthes 2011; Lean & DeLand 2012).””The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.” Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      “…In the UV, the amplitude of the variations is much higher, with relative changes of 1 to 20% observed in the UV band … In the visible and near infrared bands, the amplitude of the variations rarely exceeds 0.5% over a solar cycle. Spectral solar irradiance (SSI) … changes are more delicate to be observed during the 11- year cycle. Indeed, the degradation of the instruments limits this observation, and more particularly in the UV…” Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics

                      ”Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the true nature of solar variability lies in the magnetic field of the Sun itself.” Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.” Surveys in Geophysics

                      ”Changes in the spectral solar irradiance (SSI) are a key driver of the variability of the Earth’s environment, strongly affecting the upper atmosphere, but also impacting climate. However, its measurements have been sparse and of different quality.” Schöll, Micha, et al. 2016 “Making of a solar spectral irradiance dataset I: observations, uncertainties, and methods.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:29 PM

                      Yes — huge uncertainties.

                      So you have no justification in assuming the rates are high enough to produce meaningful warming.

                      It’s all just speculation, while meantime we have good science on the warming caused by GHGs.

                    • BigWaveDave April 23, 2016 at 9:27 PM

                      “…we have good science on the warming caused by GHGs.”

                      What “good science” do you have?

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 9:33 PM

                      You’re avoiding the fundamental questions again.

                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?

                    • BigWaveDave April 23, 2016 at 9:58 PM

                      An object doesn’t absorb radiation from a cooler source.

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM

                      “An object doesn’t absorb radiation from a cooler source.”

                      How does the object know the temperature of the cooler source?

                    • BigWaveDave April 23, 2016 at 11:21 PM

                      Please show some real life (testable and on Earth) example where a warmer object absorbs and is warmed by radiation from a cooler source. How does the cooler object’s radiation excite the warmer object?

                    • BigWaveDave April 24, 2016 at 8:18 PM

                      Why would it care?

                    • DavidAppell April 29, 2016 at 5:18 PM

                      >> How does the object know the temperature of the cooler source? <<
                      "Why would it care?"

                      You tell me — you're the one who claimed that radiation isn't always absorbed, like if it came from a colder object.

                    • BigWaveDave April 30, 2016 at 8:53 AM

                      Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:32 PM

                      “Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

                      Why not?

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:33 PM

                      “Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

                      How does the radiated photon (or wave, if you like) know the temperature of the object that emitted it?

                      Such a new quantum number would be absolutely shocking to every scientist alive today. Because there is no experimental proof of this.

                    • BigWaveDave May 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM

                      I take it by your efforts to deflect, that you can cite no real world example of cold heating hot , correct?

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 7:15 PM

                      Stop avoiding the question.

                      How can you see ice?

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:34 PM

                      “Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

                      Ice radiates.
                      It is colder than you.
                      So how can you see it, if no radiation from it enters your eyeball?

                    • BigWaveDave April 28, 2016 at 6:38 AM

                      What do your beliefs about EM have to do why you can present no example of cold warming hot in the real world?

                    • DavidAppell April 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM

                      “What do your beliefs about EM have to do why you can present no example of cold warming hot in the real world?”

                      It’s happening all around you, all the time, everywhere, constantly.

                      Literally, everywhere.

                    • VooDude April 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM

                      Climate scientists “have no justification in assuming the rates are” low enough to rule out a large solar influence in climate. “It’s all just speculation” that there is no solar cause. In the meantime, we still have no proof that an increase in atmospheric co2 does anything beyond enhanced plant growth.

                    • DavidAppell April 29, 2016 at 5:20 PM

                      “Climate scientists “have no justification in assuming the rates are” low enough to rule out a large solar influence in climate”

                      Absolutely, totally, utterly false.

                      The sun simply hasn’t added enough heat to account for modern warming — no even close.

                      And no one has ever shown it has — except maybe Willie Soon, who was paid to come to certain conclusions.

                    • VooDude April 29, 2016 at 11:05 PM
                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM

                      You might be willing to sell your opinions for money. But most of us are more honest and will not do that.

                      And a cartoon — a cartoon! — does not prove they will.

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM

                      Does you boss know you’re willing to sell your conclusions and opinion for money?

                    • VooDude May 2, 2016 at 11:03 PM

                      I don’t have a “boss”.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM

                      So you think you’re the only honest person on the planet? You’re honest but everyone else is corrupt?

                    • VooDude May 12, 2016 at 5:45 PM

                      Misguided, mostly – not corrupt. You’re misguided, DA … I don’t think you are corrupt (i.e. malicious) … you’re corrupted (garbage in, garbage out) … but not corrupt.

                    • VooDude April 29, 2016 at 11:14 PM

                      “The sun simply hasn’t added enough heat …” Not from the grand-sum total, TSI, compared to various calculations of “Global Warming” that are around 1W/m^2 or less (mostly, less). The TSI, as best we know of it, isn’t enough.

                      BUT, the TSI varies in strange ways, which is shown by the spectral solar irradiance, SSI. The TSI shows little variance, while the SSI shows large amounts of variance, but, some of the variance, in certain spectra, show an increase, while other spectra show a simultaneous decrease, leaving TSI showing no deviation, but … unless you assume that the Xray spectra affect the earth’s climate in exactly the same way as Ultraviolet … which is highly doubtful … the SSI may show the key interaction. We just don’t know. All of ‘climate science’ does not know and has no proof that SSI is not the cause. (We’ve been over, and over that point, DA).

                      And then, we come to cosmogenic variations … the sun’s magnetic field is not included as part of the TSI, yet, at some points, the sun’s magnetic field allows cosmic rays to bombard the earth, while at other times, the sun’s magnetic field blocks those same cosmic rays. The traces of cosmogenic 10Berrillium (as a proxy for cosmic ray flux) show a remarkable correlative pattern to the global temperature:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ed2f7953cd7cd56da5510cbb0b3755e9c767749f2cb383667b5518e31d5eb09.jpg

                    • DavidAppell May 2, 2016 at 6:40 PM

                      “… the SSI may show the key interaction. We just don’t know.”

                      Then you have no science.

                      Meanwhile, modern warming is nicely accounted for by an increased greenhouse effect.

                    • DavidAppell April 20, 2016 at 10:19 PM

                      By the way, Voodoo, you’re clearly a scientist. Why are you hiding behind anonymity?

                    • VooDude April 21, 2016 at 1:19 AM

                      Death threats … RICO laws … what, are you kidding?
                      No, DA, I’m an engineer.

                    • DavidAppell April 22, 2016 at 12:13 AM

                      “Death threats … RICO laws … what, are you kidding?”

                      I comment using my own name anywhere it’s allowed. I’ve never been threatened in any way at all. You’re just chicken, without the courage of your convictions.

                    • VooDude April 22, 2016 at 9:45 AM

                      I suppose you might get death threats from rabid “deniers” – not my kind of people. Please don’t lump me in with them.

                    • DavidAppell April 23, 2016 at 5:09 PM

                      I’m not afraid of getting nasty comments from anyone.

                      Why are you so afraid?

                    • VooDude April 24, 2016 at 7:11 PM

                      David, you seem unusually rabid, today.

                    • VooDude April 19, 2016 at 1:14 PM
                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:06 PM

                      You people are so gullible. The Sun does this https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a9e45fe96fff059939fa3097859b5b94e7460a227473d5a67676af0ed1fee23.jpg all the time. Why don’t you plot TSI for 2015, or 2014, or any year? You’ll see exactly the same patterns:

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:07 PM

                      That’s what you get for believing anything from WUWT.

                      BTW, here are the data. Plot them:

                      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

                    • VooDude April 19, 2016 at 5:23 PM

                      TIM reconstruction data: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

                      Convenient, on-line linear regression analysis web site:

                      http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/linear-regression/

                      Plug in the data … cut-n-paste.

                      Kopp & Lean 2011: The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests.”

                      Kopp, Greg, and Judith L. Lean 2011. “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance.” Geophysical Research Letters

                      http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy392/Kopp_Lean_solar_irradiance_GRL_38_L01706_2011.pdf

                    • DavidAppell April 19, 2016 at 5:43 PM

                      More attempted hoodwinking.

                      None of this in any way changes the fact that the Sun shows such spikes, up and down, several times a year.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a9e45fe96fff059939fa3097859b5b94e7460a227473d5a67676af0ed1fee23.jpg

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM

                      “I’m just saying that the scientists can’t find their butts, even if they use both hands, metaphorically speaking of the TSI and ¾W of “warming”.”

                      What about that science — specifically — is lacking?

                      I bet you can’t say.

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 9:10 PM

                      The science is lacking absoulte accuracy All of “climate science” is lacking absolute accuracy. Most of “climate science” is taking instruments designed to predict weather (or hunt submarines in WW2) and bastardize the data, coming to conclusions that the accuracy doesn’t support.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 9:31 PM

                      “The science is lacking absoulte accuracy.”

                      ALL SCIENCE lacks absolute accuracy, dummy.

                      All of it. Yet you rely on it each and every day in a great many ways. Explain.

                    • VooDude March 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM

                      That is total BS. Electronics, computers, automotive manufacturing, bridge building, etc all have to deal with understanding tolerances and errors.

                      You can’t say that about the TSI, where instruments were calibrated, at best, to non-SI-traceable 0.3% (about 4W/m^2) and then say that ‘the sun does not vary by more than 0.25W/m^2’ …
                      The conclusions don’t match the uncertainties.

                      Lee 1995 tells us that all of “Global Warming” is the same size as “irradiance variability trends which may be caused by drifts or shifts in the spacecraft sensor responses. Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 W/m^2 during the first 5 months in orbit.”

                      Lee, Robert B., et al. 1995 “Long‐term total solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JA02897/abstract

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 6:44 PM

                      Nonsense. Instead of making up numbers, why don’t you actually look at the data and see what their error bars are:

                      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

                    • VooDude April 4, 2016 at 7:43 PM

                      …Instead of making up numbers…
                      Those are quotes. The above, from Lee 1995.
                      I don’t “make up numbers”.

                      For slower people, I use italics AND quote marks. I didn’t think, David, that you would need such crutches. …

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM

                      You still aren’t LOOKING AT THE DATA.

                      The data is readily available. And it doesn’t support your claim.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 10:00 AM

                      The data you refer to is just a table. (Show me the journal-published, peer reviewed calculationss that the table is derrived from) What criteria is used? Plus or minus one standard deviation of the readings? Two? Or, is that a ‘budgetary” calculation? There are lots of things to consider … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/794d56384bb876a4f94e570b1d5fdc632d6b6349946b05b47f9e55d5a5b50b25.jpg

                      After all, Claus Fröhlich 2003 had the audacity to proclaim 0.0085%: “…The uncertainty of the composite TSI … the long-term uncertainty for the whole record from 1978 to present is estimated to ±85 ppm.”

                      Fröhlich, C. 2003 “Long-term behaviour of space radiometers.” Metrologia

                      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/40/1/314/meta;jsessionid=CBC0CFE0661DCC1F16175AAAE352A68F.c1

                      … but then, the “stray light” issue was theorized, and confirmed, and the value of the TSI shifted a whole lot more than 85 ppm!
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ff2a9a5397ab6811797e3f8a08d75bdb62fd5aba348adbc5357881f34ab1825.jpg

                      Old was 1365.4, new is 1360.8, so the new value is smaller by 4.6 Watts (per metre squared). It isn’t smaller because the sun emitted less; the earlier readings were confused by “Scattered light” entering the instrument.

                      Lee 1993 said the value was 1365.4, but Lee 1993 said it was ±0.7 but now, Kopp & lean 2011 says it is plus or minus 1.3 …

                      Wait – the 1990’s value is 1365.4 plus or minus … well, just minus 1.3, which is 1364.1, but the 2011 value is 1360.8 plus or minus … wait, just plus, 0.5 (1361.3)

                      So, if the error estimates that they gave us were realistic, then the old 1990’s value should fall inside the ± range of the new 2011, value, or, the reverse … but 1364.1 (the lowest 1990 value) doesn’t reach to 1361.3, the highest range of the new 2011 value… nor does the range of the new value, including the plus or minus range, encompass the old value. So these folks really don’t know what the total solar irradiance value is, except that it is in the range of 1360.8, apparently plus or minus (old-new, 1365.4-1360.8 = 4.6 Watts {per metre squared} )

                      The ”lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations …”

                      ”… published irradiance observations composing the 32‐year TSI database lack coherent temporal structure because of inconsistent trends that indicate the presence of uncorrected instrumental drift

                      Uncorrected instrumental drifts are the likely reason that none of the irradiance composites show consistency in their trends …”

                      ”Climate change studies that use published TSI time series to accredit solar responses must be cognizant of the possible errors in the record; otherwise climate variability is incorrectly attributed to solar variations that are in fact instrumental drifts. The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, or to alleviate conflicting claims of irradiance variations driving significant climate change in recent decades.”

                      Kopp, Greg, and Judith L. Lean 2011. “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance.” Geophysical Research Letters

                      http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy392/Kopp_Lean_solar_irradiance_GRL_38_L01706_2011.pdf

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:08 PM

                      “The data you refer to is just a table. (Show me the journal-published, peer reviewed calculationss that the table is derrived from)”

                      Learn to read — it’s all there in the header atop the data page:

                      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM

                      “Kopp, Greg, and Judith L. Lean 2011. “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance.” Geophysical Research Letters”

                      Judith Lean gave a great talk at the 2013 AGU Fall meeting showing in detail how the sun does not account for modern warming. It’s nowhere close.

                      I interviewed her afterward:

                      https://soundcloud.com/david-appell/13-mp3

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 5:02 PM

                      The TSI, as noted earlier, has a remarkably steady deliverance of wattage, over time. However, the SSI shows that the spectral components of this apparently steady TSI, vary in quite a large way. The wattage seems to be constant, but the ultraviolet goes up as the soft X-ray goes down, so the TSI appears to be uniform, while the interaction between earth’s climate and the large increases or decreases, of the X-ray and ultraviolet, well, we just don’t know, do we? That’s the thing, with this “settled science” … It changes, all the time.

                      ”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.”

                      Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc130036-TSI-Climate.pdf

                      ”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.”

                      ”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained …”

                      Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

                      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 11:04 AM

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2542db6c4f984edfed0db4276f0cbdeeac9135eb2836658d5f6d84baa9256df1.jpg

                      “3. Uncertainty estimation
                      As discussed above, the definition of uncertainties and the inclusion of different uncertainty sources differ for each instrument. Hence, it is not surprising that the final uncertainty estimates vary considerably between instruments. A particularly pronounced example are the measurements of total solar irradiance, as shown in Figure 2, where uncertainties vary over three orders of magnitude and the highest uncertainties are given for the first fully-calibrated instrument, TIM, due to the inclusion of accuracy in its uncertainty estimates. In conclusion, any meaningful inter-instrument comparison of uncertainties must take into account their sources and definitions.”

                      Schöll, Micha, et al. 2016 “Making of a solar spectral irradiance dataset I: observations, uncertainties, and methods.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2016/01/swsc150020.pdf

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 2:54 PM

                      Listen to yourself — arguing that global warming is due to the sun at the same time arguing that the TSI data is to uncertain to conclude anything.

                    • Robert April 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM

                      I think there were a couple of cats with similar attributes. L. Carroll’s, and that guy whose long name starts with S…..

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 2:55 PM

                      From the abstract of the paper you linked to:

                      “Results. We present a unified database of solar activity records with accompanying meta-data and uncertainties.
                      Conclusions. This dataset can be used for further investigations of the long-term trend of solar activity and the construction of a homogeneous SSI record.”

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM

                      You conveniently (and sneakily) left out the caption to Scholl et al Figure 2:

                      “Instrument uncertainties for different TSI instruments. They differ by up to three orders of magnitude with the highest uncertainties for a modern instrument, TIM. This is due to different definitions used for what an instrumental uncertainty is. For that reason, these values cannot be meaningfully compared.

                      Emphasis mine.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 4:50 PM

                      What? That caption is tutti-frutti colour highlighted! Here, I’ll reproduce it again…

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29dce20ccf563693592c5b5cdd34c48b09d4beb768b48bb62d7492308cb2e750.jpg

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2542db6c4f984edfed0db4276f0cbdeeac9135eb2836658d5f6d84baa9256df1.jpg

                      So, what are the definitions of the uncertainty, for that table, you keep pointing to?

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 8:17 PM

                      Why is Lee 1995 relevant today, when its analysis stops in 1993 and the data it used came from a satellite that no longer flies?

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM

                      A key “conclusion” in “Global Warming” is that the sun did not do it because the Total Solar Irradience (TSI) variance is really small. Only recently, however, did scientists notice that the variations in the energy from the sun are actually LARGE, but complimentary to the total. The variations in one part of the spectrum tend to cancel the other variations in another part of the spectrum, leaving the total … the TSI, somewhat invariant, but the SSI (Spectral Solar Irradience) is LARGE.

                      ”TSI variations are observed to be on the order of about 0.5% standard deviation from the mean value.””TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.””…although the UV radiation shortward of 400 nm represents less than 8% of the TSI, its variability may have a significant impact on climate.””The TSI is the spectral integral of SSI over all wavelengths, but its weak [low] variability masks the fact that relative SSI variations show a strong [high] wavelength dependence (Fig. 1). In particular, the visible and NIR bands are the least variable of the solar spectrum, with a relative solar cycle amplitude of the same order as for the TSI (0.1 %), whereas values of 1 to 100% are observed in the UV variations, and in excess of 100% in the soft X-ray range (below 10 nm). Each individual spectral band has a markedly different impact on the terrestrial atmosphere, which depends on the atmospheric processes affected by the given band, the amount of the spectral flux, and its variation.” … Ermolli et al. 2013

                      The interaction between different spectra from the sun, and the climate of the earth, is also LARGE. ”Long-term variations, such as the solar magnetic cycle modulation, have a more marked impact on the shorter wavelengths, especially in the XUV and EUV ranges where the intrinsic variability can reach 100%–1000% as shown in Figure 1.”

                      ”Solar irradiance in the UV (UltraViolet) range is a key parameter for space climate studies (Lilensten et al. 2008; Mikhailov et al. 2012).”

                      ”The solar spectral variability in the UV is dynamic, and affects the thermosphere/ionosphere system differently on various time scales.”

                      ”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

                      Barthelemy, Mathieu, and Gaël Cessateur 2014. “Sensitivity of upper atmospheric emissions calculations to solar/stellar UV flux.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

                      http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2014/01/swsc130040/swsc130040.html

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 2:56 PM

                      More mumbo jumbo you don’t understand.

                      The surface temperature’s climate sensitivity is indeed very small:

                      dT/T = dS/4S = 0.05 degC/(W/m2).

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:02 PM

                      ”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

                      Says nothing about atmospheric or surface temperatures, does it?

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM

                      MOST TSI satellites no longer fly. Discard their data, and I won’t complain. You can’t go back in time and take new readings, with better instruments, through the 1960s. You make the claim that TSI has been slowly declining since 1960. By how much, exactly? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b56c4a331cf0dcaa34aa15a5e315377ddf68791812c6499d4f35ab42dc4ad5a.png

                      Lee made statements about the data that he observed (which apparently covered the period from 1960 through some of the 1990s data). What Lee said was applicable to that period of data…

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM

                      UAH relies on a string of about 7 different satellites, extrapolating across their entire records.

                      Satellites don’t last forever, so such extrapolations unavoidable.

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 2:48 PM

                      “What Lee said was applicable to that period of data…”

                      And not at all applicable to today’s, or to the analysis done by LASP (they give their error bars directly on their data page).

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 10:25 AM

                      Just last year, Coddington published: ”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

                      ”…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…”

                      Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM

                      Says nothing about temperatures, does it?

                      With the climate’s sensitivity to solar changes so low, about 0.1 K/(W/m2), it would take a huge, easily noticeable change in TSI to account for modern warming.

                      Such a large change isn’t there, period.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 6:14 PM

                      Diversion into temperatures; this discussion is about absolute accuracy & climate-quality measurements … which, for the TSI, do not exist … When CLARREO hits, the necessary accuracy might be there … but, it takes decades to accumulate the data.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 6:18 PM

                      “…huge, noticeable change in TSI to account for modern warming…”
                      Modern warming is a paltry, tiny ¾ W/m^2.

                      Climate change, however, consists of very small changes in distributions of geophysical variables … Typical decadal changes are much less than 1% and clearly are small perturbations.”

                      Wielicki, Bruce A., et al. 2013 “Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1

                      Coddington 2015: ”260 The increase in total solar irradiance from the seventeenth century Maunder minimum to contemporary solar minima is of order 0.6 W/m^2 .”

                      Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 7:52 PM

                      “You can’t say that about the TSI, where instruments were calibrated, at best, to non-SI-traceable 0.3% (about 4W/m^2)”

                      Wrong. LOOK AT THE DATA:

                      new:
                      http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

                      Graphs:
                      http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 9:47 AM

                      What part of NASA’s 2013 paper by Wielicki, saying, ”A critical issue for climate change observations is that their absolute accuracy is insufficient don’t you understand?

                      There’s a HISTORY to this “Global Warming” crap. It’s not as if this was all COOKed up in 2008. You made reference to 1960! Prior to 2008, the best calibration was 0.3% – the PICARD instrument was calibrated in the new facility, But was not aloft long enough for “Climate-quality” readings. (Read the papers I cited, they tell you all about it).
                      The most modern TSI equipment is not of “Climate-quality” absolute accuracy, as written up by NASA’s CLARREO team:

                      Wielicki 2013: ”A critical issue for climate change observations is that their absolute accuracy is insufficient to confidently observe decadal climate change signals… Observing decadal climate change is critical to … attributing climate change to various sources … Sound policymaking requires high confidence in climate predictions verified against decadal change observations with rigorously known accuracy. … include uncertain long-term calibration drift, insufficient absolute accuracy, gaps in observations, and increased uncertainty even for overlapped and inter calibrated instruments (GEO 2010).”

                      Absolute calibration accuracy has a dramatic effect on climate trends (Fig. 3a). The CLARREO requirement is 0.06 K (k = 2) or equivalently 0.1 K (k = 3).… But degrading the CLARREO accuracy by a factor of 2 to a value of 0.12 K (k = 2) would degrade trend accuracy by more than 20%, and would increase from 22 to 26 years the time to detect a trend of 0.1 K at 95% confidence. Figure 3a shows that every degradation of calibration absolute accuracy by an additional 0.06 K delays the time to detect such a trend by 5 more years.”

                      ”Absolute calibration dominates the observational uncertainty for global and zonal trends.”

                      ”Again, absolute calibration uncertainty dominates the accuracy of global average trends.”

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 7:57 PM

                      You climate deniers are such liars — we have to check every little thing you say, and they always turn out to be lies.

                      THIS PAPER IS OLD! Didn’t you notice?

                      SOLAR IRRADIANCE IS NO LONGER MEASURED VIA ERBS.

                      THE PAPER ONLY LOOKS AT DATA UP UNTIL 1993.

                      Really, this is just despicable dishonesty.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

                      I don’t understand how exact quotes with bibliographic citations can be “lies”…

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 10:16 AM

                      What part of Lee’s statement:

                      The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, …” is inapplicable to your claim of TSI declining since 1960? True, Lee’s paper was in 1993. Did someone go back in time, to correct the data from 1960?

                      In 2012, Kopp said the data is only approching the necessary accuracy … : ”Continuity of the 33-year long total solar irradiance [TSI] record has been facilitated by corrections for offsets due to calibration differences between instruments, providing a solar data record with precision approaching that needed for Earth climate studies.”

                      Kopp, Greg, M. et al. 2012 “Total solar irradiance data record accuracy and consistency improvements.” Metrologia

                      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/49/2/S29/meta;jsessionid=A3CEEBDEEB01B1C1A43E0CCD4220C076.c4

                      In 2014, Pia Zacharias had this to say: ”Modern instruments require an absolute accuracy of one-tenth of the solar cycle variability, and repeatability (relative precision per year) of at least one-tenth of the accuracy…”

                      ”…absolute accuracy has recently been shown to be important for estimates of Earth’s energy balance (Wild et al. 2013). ”

                      ”In the 1990s, it was generally considered that measurements were converging to an absolute TSI value of 1366 ± 1 W/m^2 … However, after data from TIM/SORCE (launched in 2003) had become available, a new absolute TSI value was published that was approximately 5 W/m^2 lower compared to previous measurements … Lately, … have favored a TSI value of (1360.8 ± 0.5) W/m^2 as being the best representative value of solar minimum.”

                      ”Finally, PREMOS/PICARD measurements helped to resolve the discrepancy … PREMOS obtained in July 2010 yielded a solar constant of 1360.9 ± 0.4 W/m^2 …”

                      ”Dewitte et al. (2004) identified a difference of +0.15 ± 0.35 W/m^2 between the 1986 and the 1996 activity minima. However, due to the large uncertainty of the values, this result is not statistically significant.”

                      ”…(Fröhlich 2009). The given TSI values are (1,365.45±0.10) W/m^2 (for the 1996 minimum) and (1365.26±0.16) W/m^2 (for the 2008 minimum), respectively. However, in the 2013 review paper, no data uncertainties are included (Fröhlich 2013), neither for the activity proxies that are used, nor for the reported solar cycle amplitude variations. This omission limits the assessment of the significance of the results presented.”

                      ”Offsets due to calibration differences between the instruments generally exceed the stated instrument uncertainties, and long-lasting controversial debates among the representatives of the respective TSI composites (PMOD, ACRIM, IRMB) on the cross-calibration and cross-validation of the independent observations have prevented the TSI community from coming up with a conclusive TSI composite since the first TSI composite became available in the late 1990s.”

                      ”The main problems that have been identified include the assumption and correction of effects that have not been verified by the instrument teams, reference to work that has never been published, inappropriate use of models (and instrument data) to support results and the omission of measurement uncertainties preventing an evaluation of the validity of the results presented.”

                      Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.” Surveys in Geophysics

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM

                      Lee 1995 only looked at a small subset of the data.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 6:24 PM

                      What Lee said about the database being too short and imprecise was echoed by Coddington, just last year: ”The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

                      Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 8:00 PM

                      “Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 W/m^2 during the first 5 months in orbit.””

                      ALL satellites drift. Drift is accounted for. UAH — John Christie and Roy Spencer — make a living off of correcting satellite drifts, in order to compute their monthly atmospheric temperatures that deniers used to like to quote re: no warming for 18 years and such crap.

                      Used to.

                    • VooDude April 5, 2016 at 9:39 AM

                      Orbital drift is different than instrumental drift. With Spencer and Christie, their satellites were taking readings at slightly different times of day, so the diurnal temperature rise and fall was being sampled at different times. The brightness temperature does not drift as a result of orbit.

                    • DavidAppell April 5, 2016 at 3:21 PM

                      Yes, there is more than one kind of drift. Orbital drift contributes about 1 K/decade overall, when they are trying to dig out a signal of about 1/10th of that. Which they claim to do.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM

                      Josh

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 1:22 PM

                      Douglas Adams:

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:39 PM

                      The sun is perhaps, according to some studies, a ‘variable star’ and yes, as you point out, maybe it’s a GOOD THING that CO2 is going up. We may be very glad for that if current solar science is correct!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM

                      Changes in solar irradiance have very little effect on climate, especially compared to GHGs. It’s the latter that will dominate climate change in this century, even if there is another Maunder Minimum:

                      “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
                      http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

                      “Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
                      Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010) http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf

                      http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 3:43 AM

                      I’m sorry to bombard you with replies, but your comment was full of pure gibberish. THings that made no sense at all.

                      The astounding thing is you don’t even know this, but are completely sure the canonical science is wrong.

                      How does that happen? I’m truly interested in this? Your science background is obviously weak, as I’m sure you know. So how are you so confident you are right and all the scientists in the world are wrong, about so many basic things?

                    • Brin Jenkins May 13, 2015 at 3:56 AM

                      Too many replies for me, perhaps you get paid to do this and I don’t,

                      If I don’t understand I ask for an explanation of the mechanisms involved, and you, or anyone else has not supplied it. Oh yes of course, and clouds are all cotton wool.

                    • DavidAppell May 13, 2015 at 4:08 AM

                      I gave you the simple mechanism — CO2 absorbs some of the radiation given off by the Earth, and re-emits some of that back downward.

                      That’s as simple as it gets. What don’t you understand?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:52 PM

                      Unfortunately for your argument, the most that has been claimed by any even remotely valid source is 10%. And the methodology used to reach that conclusion is suspect.

                      However, yeah, I’ll take all the global warming we can get! The Earth is nowhere near “optimum temperature”. If CO2 really is the thermostat (clearly it is not, but we’ll stipulate it is for just this response) then I say TURN IT UP!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 5:55 PM

                      CO2 quickly absorbs all the IR given off by the Earth.

                      This is then re-radiated in all directions. Then absorbed again, re-radiated again, etc. Above about 3 km, there is net radiation escaping to space. Below it, it warms the planet.

                    • Mary Brown May 14, 2015 at 10:05 AM

                      Well, he is a full time climate alarmist hack. But he is kicking your butt in this argument.

                    • Believer May 15, 2015 at 2:35 PM

                      All of the scientists in the world are not in agreement. Why should we believe your theory’s if there is doubt among the people who are supposed know what is fact do not agree?

                    • Debauche May 15, 2015 at 3:11 PM

                      Excuse me???? “‘ALL’? the scientists in the world”????? “All” your scientists have been wrong with 97.4% of their predictions over the past 25 years. Yet you blindly follow where they lead you.

                    • Robert May 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM

                      Seems there must be a special set of fizziques books that only the contrarians have access to….
                      Kinda wonder if they used their special books in a class, what their grade in general would wind up being. Seems what they are claiming here would require some changes other places also…..

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 11:44 PM

                      Climate change is based on standard physics, established a hundred years ago or more. That physics is a basic part of any university physics degree.

                    • Robert May 19, 2015 at 3:04 PM

                      I was thinking along the lines of how a person using an xtian or ID biology book would fare in a biology class (be it MS, HS, 4 year) .

                    • BigWaveDave February 4, 2016 at 1:16 AM

                      You were cheated.

                    • DavidAppell February 4, 2016 at 1:41 AM

                      Sorry, nope — nor have you shown any qualifications or expertise to be taken seriously on this topic. This is what physics finds, whether you like or not.

                    • BigWaveDave February 6, 2016 at 1:13 AM

                      No it is not what physics finds, it is what fools who have been called or call themselves physicists repeat. The clue to this lies in the fact that not one of them has been able to describe the “greenhouse effect” in quantifiable and testable terms.

                    • DavidAppell February 8, 2016 at 5:59 PM

                      BigWaveDave wrote:
                      “….not one of them has been able to describe the “greenhouse effect” in quantifiable and testable terms.”

                      Ridiculous — you are woefully uninformed.

                      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

                      Their press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
                      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

                    • BigWaveDave March 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM

                      Perhaps I wasn’t clear with what has not been shown.

                      1.) What is the testable physical means by which atmospheric carbon dioxide can control temperature via radiation?

                      2.) How does the answer to 1 explain any measurable temperature change from a 0.01% change in the atmospheric fraction of CO2?

                      In other words, what justifies presuming CO2 should or could have the effect supposedly observed?

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM

                      Dave: The Earth emits infrared radiation, and atmospheric CO2 absorbs it. What more do you need to know? Anyway, here you go:

                      “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

                      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

                      Their press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
                      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 8:45 PM

                      Re #2: You are making a classic mistake: assuming that because something’s concentration is small it has no effect.

                      Would you drink a 400 ppm solution of cyanide and water?

                    • BigWaveDave March 29, 2016 at 9:01 PM

                      You didn’t answer either question. I presume that is because you know of no physical reason that CO2 should be affecting temperature. Instead you ask me if I want to drink some poison.

                      What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 9:21 PM

                      Of course I know why CO2 affects the Earth’s temperature.

                      Now, why don’t you know?
                      Why did you never seek out an answer to this (good) question, which has been in the air for over 25 years?

                    • BigWaveDave March 29, 2016 at 11:22 PM

                      Any change in CO2 concentration will cause a very slight change in the overall mass and specific heat of the atmosphere. Other than the very very slight influences these two changes have, there is no physical reason for any CO2 affect on Earth’s temperature. If there were, someone could state it .

                      But since you can’t state and no one has stated why and how in real physical, testable terms, you should at least wonder why.

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 11:32 PM

                      “Any change in CO2 concentration will cause a very slight change in the overall mass and specific heat of the atmosphere.”

                      Is that all? What will that change do to the atmosphere’s ability to absorb infrared radiation?

                    • BigWaveDave March 29, 2016 at 11:52 PM

                      Not very much at all. Can you answer the questions, please?

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 12:04 AM

                      “Not very much” isn’t an answer.

                      Numbers would be an answer. If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere doubled, how much would its heat-trapping ability change?

                    • BigWaveDave March 30, 2016 at 12:30 AM

                      The surface temperature would not change enough to measure with any ordinary thermometer.

                      What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 12:35 AM

                      “The surface temperature would not change enough to measure with any ordinary thermometer.”

                      What is the basis or calculation for this claim?

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 12:36 AM

                      “What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.”

                      Umm, are you really unaware the carbon dioxide absorbs infrared (heat) radiation?

                      This was discovered around 1859, and it forms the entire basis for manmade global warming….

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 11:33 PM

                      “If there were, someone could state it .”

                      As far as stating it goes, have you ever read a textbook on climate science.?
                      Ever heard of the Schwarzschild equations?

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 12:06 AM

                      “What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?”

                      Because one shows that your ideas are inconsistent and faulty.

                      You assume that a small amount of a substance can have no effect. But the example of 400 ppm of cyanide shows this assumption to be wrong.

                      So perhaps you’re wrong in the same way about atmospheric CO2….

                    • BigWaveDave March 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM

                      I am asking you to explain how 0.01% CO2 by volume is supposed have effect on atmospheric temperature with justification of the magnitude you claim.

                      I’m not asking you to kill everyone with your poison. We can live without that, but we can’t live without CO2.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 7:53 PM

                      Of course I can show this — because I know the science.

                      Do you know how to determine how much warming results from an atmospheric concentration of X% CO2?

                    • BigWaveDave March 30, 2016 at 9:10 PM

                      I’m familiar with the simplistic ‘X deg temp increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm”, but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.

                      But, if you think you can, have at it. You will be a star for sure, since your explanation will be the first.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 9:33 PM

                      “…but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief…”

                      Wrong.
                      It’s this simple: the Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs it.

                      You should have learned this in 6th grade science.

                    • BigWaveDave March 31, 2016 at 1:47 AM

                      So, what happens after the CO2 in the atmosphere “absorbs” the infrared radiation? Does the CO2 get hot? How hot? Does the heat get shared with other molecules in the air? How much heating can that hot CO2 actually do at the surface or in the rest of the air?

                      Please walk us through the physical mechanism of how and by how much a CO2 concentration 0.03% should warm the surface; and by the same how, by how much you expect a CO2 concentration 0.04% to warm the surface. The main thing that you keep missing is the “how?”.

                    • DavidAppell March 31, 2016 at 1:54 AM

                      “So, what happens after the CO2 in the atmosphere “absorbs” the infrared radiation?”

                      Again, your ignorance is showing. You need to learn some science. Badly.

                      After CO2 absorbs upwelling IR, it reemits it, some of which goes downward.

                      That *IS* global warming.

                      See how simple it is?

                    • DavidAppell March 31, 2016 at 1:55 AM

                      “Please walk us through the physical mechanism of how and by how much a CO2 concentration 0.03% should warm the surface; and by the same how, by how much you expect a CO2 concentration 0.04% to warm the surface. ”

                      It is a detailed calculation — you couldn’t handle it.

                      But you could read Chapter 4 of Pierrehumbert’s textbook, Principles of Planetary Climate. Early PDF here: http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

                    • Robert March 31, 2016 at 11:32 AM

                      Chapter 8 of AR5 does a thorough job as well..

                      There’s also the NASA for Kids site…..

                    • BigWaveDave April 1, 2016 at 1:54 AM

                      I’m somewhat familiar with Pierrehumbert’s fiction. He has let the cheerleading of climate activists cloud reality. In my opinion, he offers only a rather myopic and very limited view of atmospheric temperature regulation, and many of his premises are inapplicable or simply wrong.

                      But, with respect for your next question, if you think I have failed to see an applicable physical mechanism in Pierrehumbert’s work, please show me what I missed, and how you can use it to explain in quantifiable physical terms how “ghg” warming works and how much there should be.

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM

                      “In my opinion, he offers only a rather myopic….”

                      Who cares? Your opinion about a noted expert like Pierrehumbert is irrelevant and doesn’t matter in the least.

                    • DavidAppell April 4, 2016 at 6:17 PM

                      “if you think I have failed to see an applicable physical mechanism in Pierrehumbert’s work, please show me what I missed, and how you can use it to explain in quantifiable physical terms how “ghg” warming works and how much there should be.”

                      Q: Do you know what the two-stream equations are?

                    • BigWaveDave April 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM

                      Yes, inapplicable.

                    • DavidAppell April 13, 2016 at 10:48 PM

                      Why aren’t the two-stream equations applicable?

                    • DavidAppell March 31, 2016 at 1:57 AM

                      “The main thing that you keep missing is the “how?”.”

                      I’ve told you many times by now.

                      Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR given off by the surface. It them reemits it, in a random direction. Some of this reemitted IR goes downward. That *IS* global warming.

                      Got it finally?

                    • DavidAppell March 31, 2016 at 2:07 AM

                      BigWaveDave: Honest question — have you made _ny_ attempt whatsoever to understand the basis of manmade global warming? That is, why so many scientists are convinced it is happening?

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 11:31 PM

                      “I’m familiar with the simplistic ‘X deg temp increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm”, but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.”

                      How exactly do you think climate sensitivity is calculated??

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 11:32 PM

                      “…that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.”

                      Do you really deny that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation??

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 7:54 PM

                      “We can live without that, but we can’t live without CO2.”

                      Nobody — NOBODY — suggests removing all CO2 from the atmosphere.

                      What was the problem when the atmosphere had only 280 ppmv CO2?

                    • BigWaveDave March 30, 2016 at 8:20 PM

                      “What was the problem when the atmosphere had only 280 ppmv CO2?”

                      The relative difficulty growing crops likely contributed to the “Dust Bowl” in the ’30s.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:28 PM

                      What difficulty in growing crops?

                      Please specify these difficulties.

                      Show that they were more difficult than today.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:29 PM

                      “The relative difficulty growing crops likely contributed to the “Dust Bowl” in the ’30s.”

                      The Dust Bowl was created by man. He has only himself to blame, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide.

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:59 PM

                      What was the difficulty growing crops back then?

                      Please specify, with documentation.

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 8:47 PM

                      “How does the answer to 1 explain any measurable temperature change from a 0.01% change in the atmospheric fraction of CO2?”

                      A molecules concentration is only ONE of two relevant considerations.

                      The one you are ignoring is how well CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation. And they are very, very good at doing that.

                      In fact, the infrared radiation Earth emits is all absorbed at CO2’s absorption frequencies in less than a meter above the surface.

                    • BigWaveDave April 15, 2016 at 6:16 AM

                      Bullshit from someone else isn’t going to excuse your failure to answer the question.

                    • DavidAppell February 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM

                      See also:

                      “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

                      “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

                      “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:50 PM

                      “canonical science” like “the Earth is the absolute center of the universe, the sun and all the planets revolve around it”.

                      Yeah, actually, “canonical science” is routinely proven wrong. That is why the absolute refusal to accept any sort of questioning and debate of “canonical science” is so anti-science!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM

                      So let’s see your disproof of:
                      1) Planck’s law of radiation.
                      2) the absorption and emissions properties of CO2.

                      Because these two things alone imply manmade global warming.

                    • BigWaveDave March 28, 2016 at 5:35 AM

                      Prove how either has anything to do with temperature anywhere on Earth.

                    • DavidAppell March 29, 2016 at 8:49 PM

                      Dave wrote: “Prove how either has anything to do with temperature anywhere on Earth.”

                      First question: do you know any modern physics at all?

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM

                      CO2 is plant food. Plant “work ethic” (Net Primary Productivity) is up 15%-20% …

                    • Frank W Brown May 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM

                      BULLSHIT! GOOD GRIEF!

                    • Steinar Hansen May 18, 2015 at 9:30 PM

                      Ok. That argument convinced me!

                    • waxliberty May 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM

                      It’s even worse than you think Frank: the earth is not 3,000 years old, humans evolved from more primitive primates, smoking cigarettes increases your risk of cancer – and many more unwelcome messages delivered to your doorstep courtesy of the hateful scourge that is science.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM

                      Water vapour absorbs those same frequencies (wavelengths) of infrared radiation. Like a pirate’s eye-patch. If you put sunglasses on, over your eye-patch, are the sunglasses going to reduce the light that reaches your retina?

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 2:31 PM

                      Yes, water vapor is a big contributor to the baseline greenhouse effect. But for AGW, water vapor concentration doesn’t change until the temperature changes — it’s a feedback.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 6:45 PM

                      Water vapor is the greenhouse gas occurring in the atmosphere in concentrations about 2%, and is the most abundant greenhouse gas. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere already that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibium, and that increasing emissions would not increase atmospheric concentrations.”

                      “According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in climate change.”

                      Zámostný, Petr, Pavel Kukula, and John S. Young 1999. “Possible green house gases and global climate change.” Chemické listy (Prague)

                      http://www.chemicke-listy.cz/docs/full/1999_04_238-242.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 11:41 PM

                      None of this contradicts anything I said earlier.

                    • Voodude May 18, 2015 at 6:45 PM

                      DOE/EIA-0573: Water vapour is by far the most common, with an atmospheric concentration of nearly 1 percent, compared with less than 0.04 percent for carbon dioxide. The effect of human activity on global water vapor concentrations is considered negligible … ,”

                      ”Water vapor, as noted above, is the most common greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibrium, and that increasing emissions of water vapor would not increase atmospheric concentrations (4). According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in either causing or ameliorating climate change.”

                      ”Each [greenhouse] gas absorbs radiation in a particular set of wavelengths, or “window,” in the spectrum. In some cases, where concentrations of the gas are low, and no other gases block radiation in the same window, small emissions of the gas will have a disproportionate absorptive effect. However, if concentrations of the [that] gas rise over time, a larger and larger portion of the total light passing through the “window” will already have been captured, and the marginal effects of additional emissions will not be as large. Therefore, the effect of an additional unit of emission of a gas

                      that is relatively plentiful in the atmosphere, such as water vapor or carbon dioxide, tends to be less than that of a rare gas, such as sulfur hexafluoride. This “diminishing return” effect implies that increasing the concentration of a particular gas reduces the impact of additional quantities of that gas. Thus, the relative impacts of various gases will change as their relative concentrations in the atmosphere change.”

                      DOE/EIA-0573 (99) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999 (published October 2000)

                      http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4265704/FID3754/pdf/environ/057399.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 18, 2015 at 11:40 PM

                      Do you have a point? Anyone can cut and paste….

                    • Voodude May 19, 2015 at 5:27 AM

                      While anyone can cut-n-paste, my points are emboldened using the author’s own words. For example, we were discussing water vapour as a “feedback” which would be “amplified” – a key point in the warmist arsenal… Yet, “Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation

                      … completely negating the warmist mantra of amplification of CO2 via additional water vapour … not my words, but properly cited and quoted from journal-published, peer reviewed research…

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:07 PM

                      You misunderstand the science. First of all, we can’t “emit” water vapor — it’s level is determined by nature. And that level depends on the temperature of the air. So if the air temperature is increasing, the atmosphere can hold exponentially more water vapor, a strong positive feedback on global warming.

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 3:53 PM

                      To avoid a redundant post, this URL links to a comment elsewhere in this post:

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/what_would_it_take_to_convince_a_climate_realist/#comment-2036270037

                    • BigWaveDave October 3, 2015 at 11:46 PM

                      What do you think is emitted when Hydrogen is burned?

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 4:01 PM

                      The point he is demolishing your claims and you’re busy pissing into a strong wind in response.

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM

                      I don’t see any demolishing of my claims. I see a bunch of stuff thrown blindly thrown against the wall, which you think amounts to an argument. It does not.

                    • Voodude May 19, 2015 at 4:37 AM

                      The relationship between surface temperature, total column water vapour (and the resultant infrared effects), and precipitation, is not very clear… Increased temperature drives more water vapour, but that relationship dies a quick death, very close to the surface of the earth, as other effects dominate – like cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics. These are the biggest flaws in General Circulation Models; they can’t deal with the fine spatial resolution (less than 1°) necessary to model cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics, because of the geometric increase in computing power (or, elapsed time) necessary, so this is fudge-factored-in (parameter-ized) … and doesn’t match reality. A factor of twodoubled, or halved would be an excellent mismatch rate for today’s models… In general, they are worse than that. They cannot simulate the correct sign, let alone agree on the magnitude, comparing simulation to observation. In general terms, the claimed mismatch of radiative effects of about 2.5 watts per square meter, is the “Global Warming” factor. Hansen said it was 0.58W per square meter …

                      “… a 5% increase of [Stratocumulus clouds’] coverage would be sufficient to offset the global warming induced by doubling CO2”

                      Other scientists: Randall et al. (1984), Slingo (1990), Bretherton et al. (2004) and Wood (2012) say essentially the same thing.

                      Lin, Jia-Lin, Taotao Qian, and Toshiaki Shinoda 2014. “Stratocumulus Clouds in Southeastern Pacific Simulated by Eight CMIP5–CFMIP Global Climate Models.” Journal of Climate

                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00376.1

                      Foley 2010: ”… According to Schwarz (2008: 439), ‘a 10% error in treatment of clouds in the climate model would result in an error of some 4.8 W/m2’.

                      Scaling that figure, a 2% error in treatment of clouds in the climate model would result in an error of some 0.96 W/m^2; that is enough to eclipse James Hansen’s 0.58W/m^2 of “Global Warming” …

                      Foley, A. M. 2010 Uncertainty in regional climate modelling: A review Progress in Physical Geography

                      http://www.wou.edu/~vanstem/490.S14/Uncertainty%20in%20Climate%20Modelling.pdf

                      “…but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of [Cloud Fraction] and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle, over all analysed areas.”

                      “The multi-model ensemble mean [total cloud fraction] (57.6 %) is, on average, underestimated by nearly 8% (between 65°N/S) when compared to CERES–MODIS (CM) and ISCCP results…”

                      “…while an even larger negative bias (17.1 %) exists compared to the CloudSat/CALIPSO results.”

                      Probst, P., et al.. “Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models.” Atmospheric Research 107 (2012): 161-170.

                      http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/files/forschung/theomet/docs/pdf_2012/2012_Probstetal_cloud_cover_AtmosRes.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM

                      Of course climate models have uncertaities — all calculations in science do. Unless you can offer a supercomputer with much more processing power…. It takes a factor of 16 increase in processing power to halve the grid sizes and time steps. And some of that would go to incorporating more detailed physics.

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM

                      Researchers, comparing models to the real world, document many parameters that are off by a factor of two … double, or half … or some, by an order of magnitude
                      Researchers have documented large errors in the models, which are of opposite sign (thus, they cancel each other) … yet, predictions made from these models, like Hansen’s 0.58 watts per square meter of “imbalance” is the supposed factor that warms the planet. Of all the energy that slams into the planet, Hansen says, 240 watts per square meter are absorbed, and his 0.58 out of 240 is about ¼ of one percent – a tiny fraction. That is assuming the previous calculations are correct – Over a thousand watts per square meter, at the top of the atmosphere, peak, slam into the planet… about 340, averaged out. Hansen’s 0.58 out of that portion, is an even smaller percentage.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 5:01 PM

                      In fact, the models do a very good job of reproducing the warming-to-date — an error of less than 10%:

                      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/more-about-cumulative-warming-models.html

                    • gnac May 20, 2015 at 6:50 PM

                      How do you know the “uncertanties” are so minute as to not change your perceived belief that climate change is due to AGW?

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 10:16 PM

                      An enormous amount of evidence exists that shows climate change is due to humans. Go look it up. This question simply is not in doubt by any scientist.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM

                      Your last link is 404.

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 3:28 PM

                      Fixed.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:39 PM

                      Now it fails to download, but looking at the picture you posted…. yes, climate models don’t exactly replicate the precise thermal structure of the atmosphere….. That’s why modelers express their results with confidence limits. For CO2’s climate sensitivity it’s 1.5 – 4.5 C. There’s just as much chance of the 4.5 C happening as of the 1.5 C happening. So it’s a question of addressing risk — do you feel lucky?

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 4:34 PM

                      You must know about how to use Google Scholar, right? Put the name of the paper into the search field… pick any of the many PDFs that appear.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 5:00 PM

                      Quote what you think is relevant — I”m not going on a wild goose chase.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM

                      BTW, how well does your model do? Or any contrarian model?

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 4:28 PM

                      Dr. George Edward Pelham Box: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

                      Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0-471-81033-9.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM

                      Exactly. So what is your point?

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 4:59 PM

                      I don’t present models to back up my point. I seldom have a “point” of my own. I quote scientists (mostly) with citations and URLs. The time-series graphs are not my own, but cut-n-paste from the cited web site (even my cartoons are cited and have a URL). For web sites that don’t compute a linear regression, I sometimes do, and usually paste the results, and draw, graphically, on the chart… I generally don’ t opine or predict, I cite and quote others.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM

                      What are you trying to convey by quoting others — that climate models don’t get everything right? There isn’t a modeler in the world who would disagree with that.

                      Worthwhile to watch Gavin Schmidt’s TED talk:

                      http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?language=en

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 5:02 PM

                      Where are those contrarian models (or your model) that get everything exactly right?

                      And how do you explain the 0.9 C warming to-date?

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 5:36 PM

                      I don’t present models. I present critiques of models by others. 0.9°C? Compared to the detrended standard deviation (from ice cores) in the last 8ka of the Holocene, that is less than one standard deviation, and then again, ”about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”

                      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/how-much-have-adjustments-contributed-to-global-warming/
                      And a significant disagreement exists between NOAA satellite measurements of TLT, and estimates of 2m air temperature … plus, the numerous disagreements with proxy reconstructions of 2m air temperature. I will agree that it warmed, I do not agree on the 0.9K, especially when not tied to a time frame.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:17 PM

                      Actually, the simpliest climate model doesn’t need detailed physics of clouds — it simply says that total warming will be proportional to total CO2 emissions. The constant of proportionality is 1.5 C per trillion tons of carbon, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.0 – 2.1 C/Tt carbon.

                      That’s the path we’re on, and what models predict we’ve been on and will remain on:

                      https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cumulativeemissions.jpg

                    • gnac May 20, 2015 at 6:55 PM

                      please explain please…..CO2 vs warming

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 10:14 PM

                      What?

                    • Voodude May 19, 2015 at 5:41 AM

                      ” — it’s a feedback.”
                      Feedbacks can be positive or negative.
                      Evaporation follows temperature, but atmospheric total-column water vapour does not.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:06 PM

                      False. The atmosphere can hold exponentially more water vapor as temperatures go up — see the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:58 PM

                      Yes, it is a feedback, and clearly a strong negative one. Completely overwhelming any positive effect of CO2, obviously!

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 5:54 PM

                      Wow are you confused. The water vapor feedback IS DUE to the warming created by CO2. It’s a strong positive feedback that would not occur without CO2 first causing warming.

                    • waxliberty May 21, 2015 at 6:13 PM

                      This is getting to be a greatest hits of common CO2 internet myths. There is not overlap at all frequencies nor is there the same amount of mixing up into the highest levels of the atmosphere.

                    • Voodude May 22, 2015 at 11:05 AM

                      waxliberty, it is true that water vapour does not eclipse all the wavelengths of CO2. Here is one band 4μm-5μm; in this instance, the earth does not radiate outgoing long wave radiation of appreciable power.

                    • Voodude May 22, 2015 at 11:06 AM

                      Some bands of CO2 wavelength have different magnitudes of absorption… Where a chance exists for CO2 to beat water vapour, well, it would appear that those bands are already pretty saturated…

                    • Voodude May 22, 2015 at 11:17 AM

                      CO2 in the 10μm-20μm band, where water vapour is changing from high saturation to low saturation…

                    • Voodude May 22, 2015 at 11:18 AM

                      Methane and Nitrous appear to be pretty well eclipsed:

                    • waxliberty May 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM

                      If you are really interested in the details, work through papers like this:
                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

                      You are not raising any remotely new points relative to known physics here, or offering some sort of counterpoint to David’s basic description of how the enhanced greenhouse effect operates (driven not just by human CO2 emissions but a number of GHGs), as you seem to be pretending to be.

                    • Voodude May 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM

                      I’ve never seen such information presented as a blog comment, anywhere in Disqus. True, the journal-published scientific papers that so much stuff actually comes from, are the real pioneers – I just echo what they say. Tonnes of it.
                      The diagram that I made comments on has a URL showing where I got it from … I don’t create my own charts like that, and I give credit with the URL.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM

                      Not the best graph I’ve seen… their math doesn’t add up and it’s from WIKIPEDIA which is for wikipdiots.

                      That said, you are making more sense than DA and the other climate alarmists here, so other than maybe trying to get a better graph from a better source, keep it up!

                    • Voodude May 19, 2015 at 4:49 AM

                      Correcting Brin: “Brin: The Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 the ensemble of greenhouse gases, the majority of which is water vapour, absorbs it. The CO2 greenhouse gases then re-emits that radiation, and some of it goes downward. That warms the surface.

                      It’s this mechanism that keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 °C warmer than the sun can make it.”

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:11 PM

                      Obviously there are more GHGs than CO2 — I was explaining how CO2 causes warming. And again you don’t understand how water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere — it changes when the temperature of the atmosphere changes. Warmer air can hold more water vapor. That’s a positive feedback of AGW.

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM

                      This is an area of contention, but precipitation fights against evaporation, and thus, a thin layer against the oceans (or an isolated chamber in experiments), it seems that warmer air holds more water … but in the real world, it isn’t that simple.

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM

                      The Clausius-Claperyon relationship isn’t in “contention” — it’s a fundamental consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

                    • waxliberty May 21, 2015 at 6:08 PM

                      In the real world, atmospheric water vapor content has increased generally consistent with Clausius-Clapyeron according to observations so far.

                      Water vapor contributes to the negative adiabatic lapse rate feedback effect, but this is quite small compared to the (positive) enhanced greenhouse water vapor feedback in terms of energy impact. The water vapor feedback is not incredibly contentious in reality, it is directly observed and relatively well quantified.

                    • Voodude May 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM

                      Clouds (sold water, i.e. ice crystals) also absorb the long-wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and emit energy into space at the temperature at the cloud tops (e.g., Ramanathan et al., 1989)

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 3:09 PM

                      Yes, they can. They also emit energy to the surface. The science is showing that the cloud feedback is very likely positive:

                      Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
                      https://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract?related-urls=yes&legid=sci;330/6010/1523

                    • Voodude May 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM

                      ” science is showing that the cloud feedback is very likely positive:”
                      Dessler 2010

                      more recent research indicates the opposite:
                      Calisto 2014
                      ”Cloud forcing, thus, is negative, for the shortwave component, where clouds generally have a cooling effect, and positive, for the long-wave component, where clouds generally have a warming effect.”

                      Calisto, M.,et al. 2014 “Cloud radiative forcing intercomparison between fully coupled CMIP5 models and CERES satellite data.” Annales Geophysicae.

                      http://www.ann-geophys.net/32/793/2014/angeo-32-793-2014.pdf

                    • DavidAppell May 20, 2015 at 4:59 PM

                      negative for the shortwave component…positive for the longwave component….. that doesn’t mean the overall cloud feedback is negative.

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 8:15 AM

                      “…always negative, on average”.
                      ”Clouds, along with column water vapor, are the principal control of the surface radiation budget. Clouds simultaneously reduce the amount of shortwave (SW) radiation and increase the amount of longwave (LW) radiation reaching the surface.”

                      ”The sites we consider here are the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma; the North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Pt. Barrow, Alaska; and the Manus Island and Nauru sites in the Tropical Western Pacific (TWP). ”

                      ”The [long-wave, infrared] cloud effect values are a bit more surprising. There is actually very little difference in the values, particularly between the tropical sites and the [Southern Great Plains]. The value in the [Alaska’s North Slope] is larger by only about 10 to 12 W/m^2. As a result, the net cloud effect is dominated by the [short-wave cloud] effect, and is always negative on average.

                      Ackerman, Thomas P., and C. N. Long. 2005 “A surface based climatology of irradiance, cloud effect and cloud amount at the ARM sites.” Ninth Symposium on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface

                      https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2005/techprogram/paper_86470.htm

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 7:55 PM

                      Yes, clouds both cool and warm.

                      So what is your point, in your own words? Can you do more than cut-and-paste? (I’m not convinced.)

                    • VooDude March 30, 2016 at 8:40 PM

                      I replied to myself …
                      Why should I re-state it, when my emboldened, italicized markup says it, in the scientists’ own words?

                      “…and is always negative on average.”

                      Ackerman says that the cloud radiative factor is consistently negative. Clouds cool the earth. Not all clouds, and not everywhere, but, consistently, “…always negative on average.”

                      Ok, in my own words, DA, I think you’re wrong, and Ackerman is my citation. He says, “…and is always negative on average.”

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/df9cc7bf905b5ed2e3f77ba4f2a4a14a2180e7fc9cc2c114b68135ca013d1185.jpg

                    • DavidAppell March 30, 2016 at 8:55 PM

                      The science is looking more and more like the cloud feedback is positive:

                      Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

                      Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

                      “Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
                      Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
                      DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

                      Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

                      Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

                    • waxliberty May 21, 2015 at 6:06 PM

                      It is the major open question, however the available evidence makes it quite clear the cloud feedback effect is not so powerfully negative that it would counteract global warming and render it not an issue. (It is, after all, clear from paleoclimate e.g. glacial periods that the net sensitivity in the system is positive, as per the 1.5-4.5 ECS range.) We can still hope it will moderate the impact some, but the point from a policy perspective is that the odds that it is very strongly negative and hence we are at risk of taking too much policy action against GHG emissions are very low.

                    • Bodhisattva December 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM

                      Actually H2O is the most common, most powerful GHG, responsible for 90%+ of the greenhouse effect.

                      A recent paper claimed that only 10% of the downwelling radiation was due to CO2, though their methodology for determining that is suspect. Are you aware of any portion of the IR spectrum where CO2 acts that H2O and other GHGs don’t?

                    • DavidAppell December 28, 2015 at 6:16 PM

                      Wrong. Actually water vapor is only responsible for 50% of the greenhouse effect with CO2 responsible for 25% and clouds feedbacks for the rest.

                      But water vapor is nearly constant except as it changes by climate change — see

                      Lacis et al, Science 330, 2010, p 356-359, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

                    • Bodhisattva May 3, 2016 at 12:06 PM

                      The warmer the Earth gets, the more the entire spectrum of radiation increases ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, including the parts that aren’t affected by CO2. The peak of the radiation also shifts as the planet warms. Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up. CO2 only delays the inevitable. It’s annoying how many supposedly authoritative sites and persons say it “traps” heat when it does nothing of the sort.

                      What you & your ilk don’t seem to get is while you are often PART right you are MOSTLY wrong, and this FACT is borne out by the following:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 5:17 PM

                      “Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up.”

                      Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere re-radiates it, some of it downward. THAT IS GLOBAL WARMING.

                    • Bodhisattva May 4, 2016 at 6:36 PM

                      How old are you? I had thought you were an adult, but your answers are those of a child… a poorly educated one at that.

                      What you are describing is not “global warming” – what you are describing is what has been misnamed the “greenhouse effect” but that is a misnomer because a greenhouse uses a physical barrier that does actually “trap” heat. Misnamed “greenhouse gasses” merely delay the inevitable loss of heat to space.

                      Now, well before humans even evolved, the Earth reached temperatures that were not only what we enjoy today, but actually significantly warmer. I know, I know, you & your ilk didn’t like that fact so you tried to erase it but there’s too much evidence to deny – funny how you people call US the “deniers” when it’s you who keep denying well established scientific FACTS that conclusively disprove what you insist on believing.

                      This occurred because of the real primary “greenhouse gas”, and I really don’t like using that term because it’s WRONG, INCORRECT, but in common use so I have little choice. The primary “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. Even your own theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism admit this – go back and read the iPCC’s explanation, which said (and I’m paraphrasing here, so don’t try to catch me out on some minor detail) that as CO2 levels rise, this would cause some heating, which would lead to more evaporation and the increased water vapor in the atmosphere would be the key to the warming that SHOULD ALREADY HAVE TAKEN PLACE!

                      If you bother to read the IPCC reports, to look at their predictions, REAL WORLD temperatures, even with the multiple fraudulent adjustments by people like KARL, JONES and HANSEN, still are falling behind the lowest predictions, the ones that the IPCC would only result from immediate, drastic reductions in human CO2 output. And human CO2 output has continued to INCREASE.

                      As for your claim that

                      “Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere.”

                      that’s pretty amusing. If you have ANY peer-reviewed, published science that makes that claim, please present it.

                      What you’ve described is not “global warming”, it’s the misnamed “greenhouse effect”.

                      And any quanta of IR that manages to get caught can either be re-radiated or it can become mechanical energy.

                      And if it is re-radiated it has an equal probability to be radiated in ANY DIRECTION, so only a tiny fraction of the heat that gets caught on the way up ever makes it back down to the surface, because EACH TIME it gets caught, going in EITHER DIRECTION, it can be re-radiated in ANY DIRECTION, up, down sideways at any angle…

                      Your thinking is flawed, apparently. You suggest that you believe all re-radiated IR goes downward. This is not the case. Best brush up and do so with a more open mind.

                      In any case, the primary GREENHOUSE GAS is water vapor, not CO2. If the atmosphere were a stadium of 10,000 atmospheric molecules, 4 of them would be CO2 and the rest other gasses. You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically. Even if we add in the other greenhouse gasses, particularly water vapor (around 3%), or 300 more fans, you’re still claiming that somewhere around 300 fans somehow out-shout the other 9,700. Wrong. And silly.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 6:42 PM

                      “The primary “greenhouse gas” is water vapor.”

                      You don’t know much science.

                      Water vapor is a feedback on AGW, not a forcing.

                      Do you know what that means?

                    • Bodhisattva May 5, 2016 at 4:24 AM

                      I know that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you people love to repeat to make it sound like you’re smart. I know what is MEANT by it, but it’s a misstatement of real world physics.

                      You can wave your hands about all you want, doesn’t change the fact that most of the residual warming due to gasses in the atmosphere is caused by water vapor, not CO2. You can get an idea of how this works if you hang around a desert as night falls. All that CO2 doesn’t stop the temperature from dropping rapidly, but the right kind of clouds will.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 7:00 PM

                      “…it’s the misnamed “greenhouse effect”.”

                      No one — except, it seems, you — thinks the atmosphere is literally like a greenhouse.

                      Everyone — though not you — understands it is just a simile.

                    • Bodhisattva May 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM

                      There you go lying about me. I am the one saying it is NOT like a greenhouse and that this is perhaps one of the worst possible similes because it is NOT like a greenhouse because it does NOT physically TRAP heat. YOU are the one trying to attribute the argument of people like yourself, who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, to me.

                      At least you admit that to call it a “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” and to call them “GREENHOUSE GASSES” is incorrect and misleading.

                      Which was the point I was making.

                      So let’s leave this one, unless you want to lie some more about it.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 8:14 PM

                      It is similar to a greenhouse effect, because the greenhouse effect does trap heat. The Earth’s surface is about 30 C warmer than it would be without it.

                    • Bodhisattva May 5, 2016 at 3:33 AM

                      No, it is DISSIMILAR to a greenhouse, because a greenhouse actually TRAPS heat using a physical barrier. These gasses merely DELAY the transmission of heat without actually TRAPPING anything.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 8:21 PM

                      From now on, one comment per exchange. I’ll ignore the rest.

                    • Bodhisattva May 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

                      He says, after he posts 25 (and counting) replies to my comment.

                      I was just about to ignore the rest of yours, since I’ve scanned through them and you have only referenced propaganda sites – sites full of propaganda, lies and talking points, in response to my posting peer-reviewed, published works written by people who actually take a similar stance as yours but at least seem to be finally admitting the truths you still refuse to acknowledge.

                      FACT: Despite the admission that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the last two decades, it is as “SETTLED SCIENCE” as is anything that the surface warming actually slowed down with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

                      Pretty much demolishes your belief that CO2 is the master control knob for surface temperature.

                      I already saw that your response to that is to cherry pick end points to come up with a line with a constant slope and to ignore the variation that occurs within that period.

                      The lengths you go to in order to remain deliberately deluded are fascinating.

                    • DavidAppell May 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM

                      The discussion is now about the pH of the ocean.

                      Do you agree that the ocean’s acidity has increased?

                    • Bodhisattva May 5, 2016 at 2:53 AM

                      Not at all. We have no idea what the total ocean pH is doing. We take a few measurements from a tiny fraction of the surface on rare occasions and that is not adequate to state what