The Greens are losing the international climate fight

Obama is gone. The “green queen” Angela Merkel is struggling over coal. Britain is brexiting the green EU. Japan is silent, while China and India burn coal like crazy. Russia never did care. And so it goes.

All in all the international climate alarm movement looks to be somewhere between stalling and collapsing. There is still a lot of political noise but the big guns are mostly silent as 2017 draws to a close.

What is really important is that most of this big ticket movement away from alarmism is coming directly from the voters. America, Britain and Germany have all swung away from the left. Only France is still going green, where they appear increasingly isolated.

Mind you there is still alarmist action in the smaller countries like Canada, and the evergreen EU is trying to act, but it is slow going at best. Conversely, smaller countries like Poland are pushing hard for sanity. There is definitely no present consensus favoring climate alarmism among the nations of the world.

As a result the UN’s campaign to take vast sums away from the developed world, in the name of climate control, looks to be heading straight for a wall. So is the very idea of climate control via world domination.

Some of all this must be the Trump effect, but it is also people waking up to the reality of green pain with no gain. This is certainly true in Britain and Germany where energy costs have exploded. France’s heavy use of nuclear power has delayed these unwanted green policy shocks somewhat, but now they are going after cars, which means directly hitting voters.

It is important not to be misled by the political noise of far away promises, like phasing out coal or internal combustion cars by 2040. There are still a lot of green voters so they will always get distant political promises, but maybe little else. Distant promises are not action.

Of course there is still a lot to be done to rein in destructive climate alarmism. But the point is that right now that alarmism has very little steam on the international stage. Now is the time to take positive steps toward sane energy policies. Some countries are already doing this, especially America and the UK, but it is just a small start at this point.

Ending absurd subsidies for renewable energy is very important. So is deregulation, plus abandoning incredibly expensive nutty green causes like decarbonization. The big green hole we now need to climb out of is pretty deep, so we must start climbing seriously.

We also need to return climate science to rationality. This means funding real science, not computer driven scares. Climate change is a natural process that we do not understand and cannot control. So the grand challenge is to finally figure out how it works, not to fabricate coming catastrophes, which is all that a lot of today’s research amounts to.

Let’s get to work while the tide of rationality is with us.

Categories

About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

624 Comments
  1. pkwz

    Knocking out the green subsidies will kill the climate change scam. The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made. Reality is setting in and people and governments are finding out that renewable energy sources can’t deliver and that the only thing they deliver are soaring electricity prices and unreliable power. The green grids are killing economies and people.

    Face it, the entire global warming movement was just an invention of affluent first world dummies who didn’t have anything constructive to do with their wealth and time. It’s just like eating disorders in the west. You don’t find anorexic teenage girls in Bangladesh.

    It’s just question of time when the ridiculous windmills and solar farms end up in the junkyard.

    • Frederick Colbourne

      “The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made.”

      I almost said “bang on” but I think maybe the movement would have started anyway even without the money. But without the money it would have soon fizzled out.

      • David Wojick

        Not sure that I agree. The environmental movement has been growing ever more powerful since the 1960s (when I started tracking it). The primary goal is power, not money. Scares are the primary tactic because scares create political power.

        But as the power grew so did the corruption, with huge payoffs now being promised. Many countries and industries are now lined up to make huge amounts of money, but that is a relatively recent development..

        • pkwz

          The environmental movement has been around for decades, but without money it had no power. Money and power are synonymous in this case. Money buys politicians which in turn results in dumb legislation. Or in the terms of the shake down racket also known as the U.N., they extract wealth and power by just existing. The U.S.A. should also just stop funding the UN. That would do wonders for the world.

            • pkwz

              Money or power, which came first? It’s a chicken and egg kind of question. Who cares…

              I can guarantee you that when the money (i.e., government subsides) runs out, the AGW movement will die. In fact, the environmental movement is bought and paid for by government funds, either directly or indirectly.

              ALL of these “first world problem” movements are phony and superfluous. They are no different than the “let them eat cake” days of the past.

              • David Wojick

                I think you may be underestimating just how dangerous the Greens really are. This is a movement on the scale of Communism last century. It is true that the alarmist scientists get billions from the US and other governments, but the activists not so much. The leading groups like Sierra Club, EDF, NRDC, WWF, etc., get relatively little federal funding.

                A lot of people believe this green stuff. For example, EDF routinely calls up 500,000 personal emails backing the latest EPA proposed nonsense regulation. Our fight for freedom is really real.

                • pkwz

                  I think you’re underestimating the power of the people which lies clearly on the other side of the environmentalist movement nut jobs. These are the folks that elected Trump, a victory against overwhelming odds which included the MSM, Hollywood, DNC, and every single left wing organization (and the RNC establishment).

                  The power of the “Greens” compared to the gun owning population of this country is insignificant. So if the greens want to start a war I think they should think twice.

                  Just because conservatives make little noise and never resort to extortion tactics (or act like little babies and commit acts of eco-terrorism), doesn’t mean that they are weak.

                  • CB

                    “I think you’re underestimating the power of the people”

                    …and I think you’re overestimating it.

                    AGW is a well-understood scientific fact that’s withstood over a century of challenge.

                    Is there any number of people which would be able to overthrow this scientific understanding without data to back up what they say?

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

                    climate.nasa.gov/evidence

                • The Federal government is spending $50 billion per year on grants that support “anthrogenic (man-caused) global warming.” It they have been at this level for the 29 years of this fraud they have spent $1.45 trillion on it, ruined science education and publishing that can be estimated to about ten times the grant figure damage.

            • TreeParty

              Wait: David Wojick of Heartland Institute?!?! The Heartland Institute that is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry?!?! Where the “science director” is a convicted felon was sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA, even while he claims that the EPA is “fraudulent”?
              Oh, well I guess we have PLENTY of reason to accept YOUR version of climate science…/sarc.

                • Immortal600

                  Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.

                  • TreeParty

                    The “two lurking trolls” you mentioned are actually conversant with climate science while you, clearly, are not.
                    jmac: 18,856 comments, 43,636 upvotes.
                    robert: 24.433 comments, 46,477 upvotes.

                    Immortal600: 2369 comments, 1552 upvotes.
                    Apropos of nothing. Just sayin’…
                    Immortal600 – A troll accusing actual responsible citizens of being trolls – major fail!

                    • Immortal600

                      Using votes to prove a point? Shallow. You are a troll. Nothing more needs to be said. You know nothing about climate dynamics and neither do they

                    • pkwz

                      anyone who spends that much time in meaningless message forums is the epitome of a troll. Guess what, nothing said on forums is worth anything. This is not the real world.

                    • TreeParty

                      I shill for no one. I work in the public transport sector, helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution.
                      You have a cartoonish sensibility: “power mongers and dictators” at the U.N.?!?! Really? So you are really just a cartoon figure. POW!!

                    • AndRebecca

                      Oh, you don’t believe power mongers and dictators run the U.N., that’s rich. Talk about being out of the loop. Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.

                    • TreeParty

                      You understand that this is a public forum where people come to discuss issues of interest to us, do you not? You understand that I am reading many of the comments here, do you not? If you are too chicken to engage me directly, that is YOUR problem. Actually, I am engaged in discussing the facts of, and evidence for, anthropogenic global warming, while you appear to be here ONLY to make personal attacks on those who disagree with your false beliefs.
                      “Lurker buddies” = classic projection..

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t care to debate you. Don’t you get that? You are the one coming here to attack, yet you are too self-absorbed to see that. Attacking Heartland and Dr. Wojick makes YOU the troll here. This site is for the non believers of AGW. “Deniers” your ilk calls us. You aren’t here to debate. You are here to denigrate and THAT makes YOU the TROLL here. Capische?

                    • TreeParty

                      I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked! I get it, alright. You want the comfort of your little echo chamber where facts don’t intrude and everyone can have their conscience soothed about trashing the planet.
                      I AM here to debate, to present facts and try to expose the fallacies being promulgated by the likes of “CFACT” and the Heartland Institute.
                      I use “deniers” like “your ilk” uses “alarmists”. I could say “people who don’t believe in AGW”, but “deniers” is more economical and conveys the same meaning. So get over it, like I got over being derided as “alarmist”. YES, I AM sounding the alarm, that NEEDS to be sounded. I think of it as a public service, like education..
                      You misspelled capisce….
                      PS. The CFACT Board of Advisors reads like a Who’s Who of global warming deniers, (especially that insufferable buffoon Fake-Lord Monckton). Just thought you’d want to know in case you want to go get some actual climate science somewhere else, you know, for balance….

                    • Immortal600

                      “I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked!”

                      hahahahahaha

                      I guess you are a legend in your own mind too?

                    • TreeParty

                      Of course your imagined “power mongers and dictators” have nothing to do with AGW. Almost every nation around the globe is concerned about AGW and signed on to the Paris Accords in an attempt to get a grip on this increasingly serious global problem. Flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon is certain to heat the planet; that is what every scientific association around the planet understands.
                      I’m trying to understand where you are coming from, but I don’t speak gibberish:
                      “they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists”.
                      What does that even mean? Can you cite any evidence for your confused and confusing claim?

                    • AndRebecca

                      Oh, when I get on the U.N. website, I don’t read what is there, I’m reading something else, hmm? Climate Alarmism is about the transfer of money from one group of people to another. No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet. And teaching the school children about Gaia is beyond ridiculous. And you still can’t figure out cars and trucks are putting out less carbon today than a few years ago. I could really insult you here. “What does that even mean?” What a conundrum! It takes a brain to figure out you’re being had, and you don’t have one. But, I’ll try again anyway…you said you work in the public transport sector helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced! You are making no sense what so ever.

                    • TreeParty

                      This paragraph is almost unintelligible, and the parts that are intelligible are wrong. “No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet” is a patently and ridiculously false statement.
                      “…and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced.” Actually, no you DID NOT say that. I read back over your comments and I do not find that statement anywhere.
                      You DID say, “Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.”
                      Perhaps I should explain to you why these two things are not the same, starting with your unreferenced pronoun that obscures your meaning: who is “they”, that have been “getting it under control”? How is “getting it under control” synonymous with “pollution is actually being reduced”? So NO, you did not say what you claim you said. Moreover, your claim is false. In the U.S, according to the EPA: “In terms of the overall trend, from 1990 to 2015, total transportation emissions increased due, in large part, to increased demand for travel.”
                      https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation
                      I am unable to see that (CO2) pollution is actually being reduced because it isn’t being reduced! There are encouraging trends here and there, but your optimistic euphemisms are mere fantasy. CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to skyrocket. Try dealing with facts and logic, will ya?!

                    • AndRebecca

                      My paragraph is almost unintelligible? I wrote it in simple language just for you and you still don’t get it. I think it’s because English is not your first language. What else could it possibly be? I appreciate the English lesson though, silly as it is. Pollution in America is being reduced and has been over the years. Especially auto pollution. Why you don’t know this is beyond me. Photos of the air in California, even with the fires, show less smog than years ago.

                    • TreeParty

                      You cartoon figures seem to be confused about what constitutes “trolling”. Here is the first half of my original comment to David Wojick:
                      “The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
                      The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
                      Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.”
                      That is NOT trolling; that is reasoned, fact-based refutation of the denier’s premise(s).
                      Now, by contrast, here is immortal’s first comment in response to me:
                      “Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.”
                      Now THAT is trolling. (Defined as making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.)
                      Consider yourself corrected, and try to do better in the future.
                      And by the way, Wojick’s claim that the climate movement is stalling or collapsing is like Trump’s claim that his inaugural crowd was the biggest ever, bigger even than Obama’s: demonstrably false! We’ve got photos!
                      http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
                      P.S. Wojick is LOSING THE ARGUMENT about AGW, and he WANTS YOUR MONEY to spread around his propaganda. Go for it, suckers!

                    • Immortal600

                      You dummy. I didn’t respond to YOU in the first place. Why? Simply because I knew it would be a waste of time. You AGW believers are losing the debate and it scares you eco-freaks to no end.

                  • cshorey

                    David is known to associate with Heartland which no longer discloses its funders after it became clear they had serious conflicts of interest. The insurance industry abandoned them for their climate science denial. They bank on real science, not the joke sources you brought. Sorry you confuse information on the real world as “trolling”.

                • TreeParty

                  But wait: isn’t this you, photo and all, in Heartland’s lineup of “Who We Are”?!
                  https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/?page=14&type=policy-experts&view=40

                  and here, featured with CV and links to recent publications?!
                  https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-wojick-ph-d

                  So you claim that you are not “of Heartland”, but they apparently beg to differ. Whom to believe; hmmm…
                  The Ad Hominem aspect of my comments is extremely well-founded as regards the cynically venal Heartland Institute, given their claim that you are “one of them”. But the REAL issue is with the demonstrably false claims you make such as:
                  “..“climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change.”
                  1) The planet is warming, rapidly. The evidence is too compelling for even a fossil fuel industry shill to deny.
                  2) The vast and overwhelming consensus among people conversant with climate science is that it is human activity that is causing the warming. Absent the massive emissions of GHG’s by humans, the planet would likely be cooling.
                  3) The effects of the observable planetary warming are certain to be damaging on balance. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of ecology will recognize that the rapid change of planetary temperature and ocean pH will disrupt ecosystems that humans depend on .
                  So the belief that humans are “causing dangerous climate change” is not a “false belief” as you claim. It is a real and present danger that virtually ALL scientific organizations worldwide are working to address.
                  There will be a special place in hell reserved for people who knew better, but used their intellectual gifts to enrich themselves to the detriment of their posterity.

                  • David Wojick

                    Tree: Heartland lists a hundred or more informal advisers, of which I am proud to be one, and we do correspond. Like I said, I did a blog article awhile back. If that is what you mean by “Wojick of Heartland” then fine. My point is simply that I neither work for nor speak for Heartland, although I would be proud to do both. Perhaps you are gripped by the green fear of Heartland.

                    As for your three claims, they are alarmist propaganda personified. Re #1 the earth is simply not warming rapidly and what little warming there is seems to be natural. We have satellite measurements going back almost 40 years and they show just a small amount of warming, which is almost entirely due to a few strong El Nino’s. So there is little if any GHG warming. In particular there is no overall warming 1978 to 1997, when the scare really got going.

                    You are probably looking at the surface temperature computer model outputs, which are as bad as the climate computer model outputs, if not worse. You might look at my article here: http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/, which Heartland happily lists.

                    Given that there is no rapid warming, your other two points are simply wrong. But re #2 the fact that a lot of people (like you) believe that there is dangerous rapid warming, when there is in fact none, simply shows that the alarmist propaganda has been effective and that is the real problem. The global warming scare is based on widespread false beliefs.

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Wojick, my hat is off to you for being a gentleman with that dude. I don’t believe he deserves kindness because it is people like him that would wreck our great economy with their loony tune ideas.

                    • TreeParty

                      So much wrong here I don’t know where to start…
                      Your claim that “there is no overall warming from 1978 to 1997”, that “.. the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period” is demonstrably wrong:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/trend
                      Why do you make that false claim when it can so easily be shown to be false?! What the actual satellite measurements show is a 1 deg. C per century rise in “global temperature” over that two decade period. Are you lying, or just misinformed?
                      But that was twenty years ago. Let’s see what “the satellites show” for the last 40 years:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1978/to:2017/plot/rss/from:1978/to:2017/trend
                      This ~0.7 deg. C increase in 40 years is in agreement with ground-based temperature measurements, and is startlingly rapid in geological terms.
                      All of your hand-waving about the unreliability of the temperature measurement methodology ignores one important point: HOWEVER you measure the temperature, if it just keeps going up year after year for decades, you are out of the noise and into the signal! Even the El Ninos are getting hotter..
                      There are multiple converging lines of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. As an epistemology guy, that should catch your attention. Besides the obvious temperature record, there is the observable fact of melting ice around the globe. Arctic sea ice extent is crashing. Glacier National Park is almost out of glaciers. Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass precipitously.
                      All that melting ice is going into the oceans which, predictably, are rising, both because of the melt water, and because of the rising temperature of the oceans. No serious person doubts that sea level is rising globally; do I need to show you the data, or can you do that for yourself?
                      Growing seasons are measurably lengthening due to shorter winters. Floral and faunal migrations, uphill and poleward, are evident in an attempt to escape the growing heat.
                      In short, all of the phenomena that global warming would predict are apparent. And we know why, because we can measure it: the injection of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity. CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS; and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by over 45% in the last century, to a level that has never occurred in human history. That’s what flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon will do.
                      These are all simply facts, not “false beliefs”. Thankfully, people who actually study climate know that it is YOU that is peddling false beliefs and sowing doubt in the face of a growing global threat.
                      Remember, David: multiple converging lines of evidence.
                      https://scienceornot.net/2013/09/09/established-scientific-models-are-supported-by-multiple-independent-lines-of-evidence/

                    • David Wojick

                      There are two problems with you WFT graphs, Tree. First, they only show the lower troposphere, not the entire atmosphere, for which a lot of that early warming disappears. Second, the data is from RSS, which uses a climate model to “adjust” its estimates. Let’s see these two graphs using UAH data and the whole atmosphere.

                      But your 40 year graph does in fact show that most of the warming occurs in a single jump caused by the giant El Nino in the middle. So there is relatively little GHG warming, if any.

                      As for the rest, we know that some places have warmed and others cooled. Other than the satellite data we do not know what has happened globally. There are no converging lines of evidence, whatever that metaphor might mean. In fact there is no evidence of significant GHG warming.

                    • TreeParty

                      Here’s the 20 year graph from UAH:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1997/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1997/trend
                      Here’s the 40 year graph from UAH:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2017/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2017/trend
                      Pretty much the same data…
                      Here’s the land/ocean record for 40 years:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1978/to:2017/plot/best/from:1978/to:2017/trend
                      You are losing the argument, David, because you are denying the OBVIOUS FACTS of the physical world. Apparently you did not read the link on the converging lines of evidence. I would be highly interested to know if you also disbelieve evolution, for which there are also multiple converging lines of evidence. Agreed that it is off topic, but I always look at the belief in evolution as a sort of litmus test of scientific credibility.
                      Every credible temperature record showing rapid warming; melting ice; rising sea level; shorter winters; floral and faunal migrations; more global heat records by far than global cold records; but “no converging lines of evidence of significant GHG warming??!! That’s just crazy talk…

                    • David Wojick

                      Global temperature data analysis made simple.

                      Here it is in simple steps. Start with this graph of UAH global temperatures for the lower atmosphere (even though the whole atmosphere would be better):

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg

                      1. Note the red line, which shows the running average. Clearly this is an oscillator. We know that linear trend lines for selected periods of oscillators are highly sensitive to the start and end points, hence most are inaccurate. The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations. The rest are more or less wrong depending on where they start and end. They can be very wrong.

                      2. Note the giant El Nino in the middle. Prior to that there is very little warming. In fact the El Nino looks like it interrupts a downward oscillation. If we go from the beginning to the last parallel upward oscillation in 1994 there is just about no warming at all.

                      3. After the giant El Nino and its attendant La Nina there is also very little warming, until the next big El Nino hits at the end. What happens after this last El Nino is anyone’s guess at this point.

                      4. However, the second flat period is significantly warmer than the first, by about 0.25 degrees.

                      5. Conclusion: There is some warming, but it is small and due to the giant El. Nino. In particular there is no evidence of significant greenhouse warming in the entire record.

                    • TreeParty

                      Good, David: I am gratified to see 1) the explicit admission that there HAS been global warming over the period of the satellite record and 2) the tacit admission that the satellite temperature record as compiled by the UAH is “legitimate”. These admissions are strongly at odds with the impression created by most of your prior statements about the issue of global warming.
                      But let’s drill down into your specious “analysis “ of global temperature data…
                      1) The “red line” (running, centered 13-month average) is clearly NOT an oscillation. But in respect of the fact that it does fluctuate, let’s use your own criterion here to plot the linear trend (“The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations.”) From the inflection point at the top of the first cycle, around 1980, to the top of the last cycle, around 2016, the delta T is OVER 0.5 deg. C. (Connecting the points at the bottoms of the succeeding negative excursions yields an even greater delta.) So in fact, the measured global warming over the ~38 years is 0.5 deg C, NOT the 0.25 degrees that you claim.
                      2) El Nino’s do not cause global warming, and so the significant warming measured in the last 38 years is NOT “due to the giant El Nino”. In fact, that claim is self-contradictory: to the extent that El Nino is an “oscillation”, and oscillations do not show linear trends, the El Nino CANNOT cause the global warming.
                      3) 0.5 degrees C can be thought of as a “small” rise in temperature; but, as always in the real world, the rate of change is profoundly pertinent. 0.5 degrees warming in 38 years is a rate of change that is very rapid in geological terms; beyond “significant”, all the way to, yes, alarming. Any fourth grader can see that the trend in the temperature record you have presented is perceptibly positive, significantly so in fact. The trend, so obvious to even a fourth grader, IS the greenhouse warming that you claim is absent. It is not the linear trend that is explained by the ninos and ninas; it is the variation around the trend that is explained by them. Just ask 97 out of 100 climate scientists!

                      In short, your “analysis” is specious, misleading, and downright wrong in places. And you aspire to “educate” our children about the true nature of climate science?! Dunning Kruger much?

                    • David Wojick

                      You obviously decline to see what I have pointed out, so we are at an end. I have stated my case and presented my evidence, which I think is quite clear. The only warming in the entire 40 year record is coincident with 2 big El Ninos. It is painfully simple. They are none so blind as them what refuses to see.

                    • TreeParty

                      Say, is that a beam in your eye?
                      “The Greens are losing the international climate fight”.. – Another false premise.
                      http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
                      “Bottom Line
                      U.S. public concern about global warming has ebbed and flowed over the past decade and a half but has generally been on an upswing since hitting a recent low point in 2011. Concern has increased each of the past two years, coinciding with an improved economy and back-to-back unseasonably warm winters.
                      Whatever the reason, the percentage of Americans worrying a great deal about global warming is at a record high, as is Americans’ belief that its effects have already begun and that human activity is the major cause. Still, less than half worry greatly about global warming or believe it poses a serious threat to their lives.”
                      Thanks for the debate.

                    • Robert

                      Interesting list of places that graph is published at. I should put published in single quotes though as they seem to all be blogs with varying degrees of ill repute….

                    • Robert

                      “…what little warming there is seems to be natural.”

                      Said by basically no scientist, anytime, anywhere….

                      A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • David Wojick

                      Nice argument from authority, a classic fallacy. But actually lots of scientists argue that most of the warming is natural, especially the Danes and Russians.

                      Your listing does highlight the sweeping power of climate alarmism, to at least generate propaganda. This much is true.

                      In fact I have a catalog of many of the biggest so-called climate education sites, all alarmist:
                      http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html
                      Most are either Federal or federally funded, big bucks indeed. There is no skeptical education site, which is why I want to build one.
                      https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education

                    • Robert

                      So. List of those “Danes and Russians” with their publications?

                      Gone missing.

                      List of “lots”?

                      Gone missing.

                      A citation of a review of the publications of those “lots” discussing how they fit to the whole body of research?

                      Gone missing.

            • Robert

              “…we do have industry activists…” Indeed.

              Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

              ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
              http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

              • David Wojick

                How do I get some of this money? But I am curious who these CCCM orgs are? I do not know of any substantial US group that just does climate change. Lots of groups do a little on climate change, plus a lot on other issues. Maybe they are counting the funding for all of that other stuff.

                • Robert

                  ” I do not know of any substantial US group that just does climate change.”

                  Well, most everybody, actually.
                  Start at respecting planetary bounderies. – http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/quantitative-evolution-of-boundaries.html

                  And, as previously cited:
                  D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                  Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                  • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                  • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                  • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                  • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                  • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                  • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                  SPM WG1 AR5

                  • David Wojick

                    I was referring to skeptical groups. That $900 million a year is ridiculous. I can believe $9 million, maybe even $19 million, but that is about it. The number of professional skeptics is maybe about a hundred, including me, and I do a lot for free. And even among the hundred or so, almost no one does it full time. Even if there were 900 of us that would still be a ridiculous million dollars apiece.

                    This $900 million is just a hoax. Alarmists trying to explain why so few people believe them and ignoring the obvious answer.

                    • Robert

                      And there we have it. No resources. Just “hoax” & ‘belief’. And math that is driven by desire.

                      And this is from a self identified “… professional skeptics…”

                      On the other hand, we have nearly two hundred years of research. We have public /government policy. We have businesses and military with developed action plans.

                      “hoax” & ‘belief’.

                      Driven by
                      Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

                      ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
                      http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

                      ” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

                      To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

                      The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”

                      Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
                      http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

                      There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
                      By Bart Verheggen

                      https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/
                      longer
                      https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

                      …and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at
                      Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice
                      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

                    • Robert

                      If you are a professional skeptic, perhaps you should lay out exactly what, in detail, you are skeptical of and the reading you’ve done that drove that skepticism

                      What research about “hoax” informed your thinking?

                    • David Wojick

                      Well, Robert, I have been fighting climate alarmism more or less full time since 1992, so the reading is rather voluminous. Plus I have done hundreds of articles and original research projects of my own.

                      The hoax I referred to is that skeptics like me are getting $900 million a year. If that were true we would have stopped your alarmism a long time ago.

                      My skepticism is very simple. There is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change. I also understand the hundreds of component issues that make up the climate debate, but I am not going to detail them here. Your request is ridiculous, as usual.

                    • Robert

                      So, basically, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing what our burning of fossil fuels has done.

                      You also prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing any other hypothesis that addresses the observations.

                      Further, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the science describing what observations are being or have been done

                      Then, you proceed to state you’ve “..done hundreds of articles and original research projects of my own” without a link to anything supporting that claim. And scholar.Google shows your name about 157 times, and that includes being quoted from a 1979 pub.

                      Further, you prefer to make unsupported claims on the state of the research
                      disussing how climate science denialism has a clear path of monetary and talking point distribution.

                      So the best defense a self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” can bring forward is empty, unsupported claims, assertions that don’t match the evidence, logical falkacies, empty rhetoric, and an expression of incredulity in the face of published research.

                    • jmac

                      In fact, that is the same Heartland Institute that has been lying about science ever since epidemiology blew the whistle on tobacco.

                      The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “libertarin think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.

                      These people represent all the predatory capitalist.

                      Apparently far right wingers, libertarians and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. Then use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that free market capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done by their product. These people are immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. They are some of the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

                      https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco

                    • David Wojick

                      Like I said, Robert, your requests are completely unrealistic, as usual. You seem to be asking me to present and defend my skepticism on the full range of climate issues — in a blog comment! It would actually be a large book, maybe several.

                      I do not get paid to comment so I can only afford a few minutes a day, if that. But if you want a deeper understanding of my positions on various issues, you might start with the 70 or more CFACT articles that I have written in the last year or so. In fact one of my latest is a good starting point. I explain in simple terms why IPCC modeling is circular junk:
                      http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/24/trumps-energy-department-supports-un-ipcc-alarmism-big-time/

                      I do not write for academic journals so Google Scholar is not useful for finding my stuff. Journals do not pay, they are far too slow, and they are staffed by academic, hence alarmist, editors. So I do not write for them..

                    • Robert

                      Oh. Let’s look.

                      Here I am, no funding. Yet I can present nearly a dozen compilations describing what the science says.

                      And your retort is you don’t get paid…..
                      An you can’t even get up the steam to link to one of your articles you claim proves something.

                      And, of course, conspiracy theory…..

                      https://www.heartland.org/sebin/l/y/chalkboard.jpg
                      Young school child pointing out what she learned about climate change thanks to Heartland Institute”s curriculum

                      “In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. ”

                      JOIN THE FIGHT FOR SKEPTICISM IN SCHOOLS
                      JUNE 19, 2017
                      By David Wojick
                      https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/join-the-fight-for-skepticism-in-schools

                    • David Wojick

                      I did link to an article.

                      How is your time being paid for? How do you pay for stuff? I need to work hard for money to do that. If you do not, congratulations.

                    • Robert

                      I’m puzzled as to how a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” doesn’t have access to any comprehensively researched pieces supporting the claims.

                      All we get is your empty assertions.

                      6th graders, average 6th graders can’t get away with that.

                    • David Wojick

                      I mostly do original research, rather than building on what others have done. One reason for this is that to my knowledge no one else in the climate science community is trained in analytic epistemology, philosophy of science and mathematical logic, which are my primary fields (along with engineering). A lot of what I do is actually math not science.

                      So I am bringing a different set of tools to the job. One of the most important is my work on the logic of complex issues. I know of no other logicians working on climate change. So I am bound to see things that others do not.

                    • Robert

                      Wow, “…original research,…” involving “…analytic epistemology, philosophy of science and mathematical logic…” which can only be published on a blog.

                      Sorry, but you haven’t linked to a single piece of your writing that show any evidence of those fields being researched.

                      Secondly, who, exactly are you trying to fool? Those topics and you’re not publishing in the science literature? Who do you think your audience is?

                    • R. Kooi

                      “Google Scholar is not useful for finding my stuff”

                      stuff is right….also right is that you have nothing to do with scholarship or science.

                      Perhaps speech writing for TRUMP !?

                    • R. Kooi

                      The budgets for DAILY Caller, Breitbart, Twitchy and other PROFESSIONAL Opinion Media exceed $1 billion per year.

                      “…This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED in Temps.
                      about 8000 years ago. Since then, temps have been slowly falling
                      as we were pulled toward the next ICE AGE…though Earth is still
                      Being Pulled in orbit away from the Sun…..We should still be colling
                      but in the mid 1700’s Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle,
                      the Ice Age
                      was terminated…abruptly…temps started to rise .
                      .
                      So Suddenly that people began questioning & Studying.
                      .
                      Direct observations
                      1799
                      Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
                      Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
                      1799
                      Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes in climate which he stated wasprobably caused by man.
                      .
                      ….CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
                      .
                      Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
                      .
                      Ocean and surface temperature measurements are rising.
                      .
                      **** These Research studies find the planet ****
                      continues to accumulate heat. Year after year.

                      HERE is a line of empirical evidence:
                      that human/industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
                      **
                      *
                      Climate Myth / The Skeptic-Denier position.

                      There’s no empirical evidence ?
                      .
                      “There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions
                      are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just
                      concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator,
                      so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.”
                      (noted DENIER David Evans)
                      ***
                      The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
                      .
                      We’re raising CO2 levels
                      .
                      Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
                      .
                      CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
                      climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
                      .
                      Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe.
                      .
                      Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
                      .
                      For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
                      .
                      Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
                      by about 100 parts per million.
                      .
                      Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions.
                      .
                      The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”, has hovered around 43% since 1958.
                      .
                      CO2 traps heat
                      .
                      According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory Measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted
                      to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

                      Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120-135 TIMES MORE CO2 than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
                      ..
                      Leading
                      Scientists
                      Questioned
                      Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
                      So,
                      In 1970,
                      NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                      .
                      Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      In 1996,
                      the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                      which recorded similar observations.

                      Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                      in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

                      Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
                      .
                      What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                      at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                      such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                      Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

                      The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
                      with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                      .
                      This research & paper found

                      “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                      in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                      .
                      This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                      using data from later satellites

                      Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                      Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
                      .
                      Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                      Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                      the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                      re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                      .
                      Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                      Hence
                      we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                      .
                      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                      of infrared radiation returning to earth

                      Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      A regional study over the central Alps found that
                      downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                      enhanced greenhouse effect
                      .
                      Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                      .
                      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                      allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                      downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                      .
                      Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                      .
                      The results lead the authors to conclude that
                      *
                      *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                      that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                      greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
                      by global warming.”
                      .
                      Figure 3:
                      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
                      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                      showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                      Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      This Entire planet is accumulating heat
                      .
                      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
                      our climate accumulates heat.
                      .
                      The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
                      adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
                      land and ice.
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
                      and heat capacity of the troposphere.
                      Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
                      were also included.
                      .
                      Figure 4:
                      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
                      .
                      From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
                      rate of 190,260 gigawatts
                      with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
                      Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
                      imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
                      pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
                      What about after 2003?
                      .
                      A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
                      from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
                      .
                      Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

                      Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
                      to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
                      consistent with other determinations of
                      the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
                      The planet continues to accumulate heat.
                      .
                      Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
                      .
                      So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
                      Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
                      The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
                      by satellite and surface measurements.
                      The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
                      planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
                      Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                      Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                      the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                      re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                      .
                      Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                      Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                      .
                      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                      of infrared radiation returning to earth

                      Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      A regional study over the central Alps found that
                      downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
                      .
                      Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                      .
                      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                      allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                      downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                      .
                      Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                      .
                      The results lead the Research authors to conclude that
                      **** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                      that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                      greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
                      .
                      Figure 3:
                      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
                      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                      showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                      Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      The planet is accumulating heat
                      .
                      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
                      our climate accumulates heat.
                      The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up
                      the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
                      land and ice
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
                      and heat capacity of the troposphere.
                      Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
                      .
                      Figure 4:
                      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
                      .
                      From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
                      Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
                      .
                      What about after 2003?
                      .
                      A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from
                      ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
                      .
                      Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

                      Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
                      to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
                      consistent with other determinations of
                      the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
                      The planet continues to accumulate heat.
                      .
                      Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
                      .
                      So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
                      Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
                      The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
                      by satellite and surface measurements.
                      The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
                      planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

                    • David Wojick

                      I assume that you are not expecting a detailed response to all of this stuff, or if so then I must disappoint you. I can make a couple of general points.

                      First, regarding the supposed increase in Earth system heat content, start here:
                      http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/
                      The ocean statistics are even worse.

                      Second, if you look at the UAH satellite temperature measurements, there is no significant GHG warming at all. There is little to no warming prior to the giant El Nino cycle beginning in 1998. There is no warming after that cycle, until the present big El Nino cycle started. However, the second flat period is a few tenths of a degree warmer than the first, presumably due to heat injected by the giant El Nino and retained in the atmosphere.

                      In short there is no observational evidence of any GHG warming. Everyone is trying to explain the supposed warming in the surface statistical models, which probably did not exist and in any case cannot be due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.

                    • Robert

                      Love it. A degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” says”…no observational evidence of any GHG warming”
                      And no supporting evidence beyond his own blog article that cites a whopping 3 resources in analyzing “There are at least ten things wrong with these statistical models. These flaws support the view that these crude temperature estimates are simply wrong.”

                      Your first resource is trying to sell a product.
                      “Company Reports FAQ
                      Why this report is so cheap?”

                      The second utilizes “..experienced online freelance writers who share in our mission to provide content that is not only reliable, but that leaves readers feeling educated, empowered, and understood.” I like the “feeling” bit. But the site looks like it’s there to serve up clicks for advirtizers.

                      The third looks to be broken or dead.

                      Really, this is the best a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” sayING “…no observational evidence of any GHG warming” can offer up in support? Stuff that doesn’t meet even a cursory use of the

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                    • R. Kooi

                      YOU REFERENCE SAID:
                      “…Contrary to popular belief these are not measurements. They are the output of complex statistical models.

                      These statistical models are every bit as questionable as the climate models they feed into, actually more so.

                      The global warming scare is based on the supposed rapid surface warming that occurred in the two decades between roughly 1978 and 1997.

                      The climate models are tuned to this warming, using speculative human causes to explain it. They then project this surface warming to dangerous future levels and that is the scare….”
                      ***
                      MODELS are computer TOOLS to study millions of human measures.
                      ***
                      A few years ago, International New MEDIA with private investigators set out to PROVE you allegations…..that GLOBAL WARMING is a fraud….
                      .
                      They found over 30.000 privately owned & operated
                      Digital Weather Stations around the world
                      …independent air fields and free sea ports, Ocean shippers, trucking companies, farm bureaus, corporate farms, monasteries, factory wineries etc.
                      .
                      They processed tens of millions of data set, going back nearly 20 years……
                      .
                      and despite your claims and your bogus source….

                      Temperatures have INCREASED for decades.
                      provides not a Jot nor a Tittle of evidence…it is a ideological SPEECH.
                      ***

                      YOU CLAIM….no increase in temps on UAH !

                      UAH versus RSS

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-UAH-versus-RSS.gif

                    • David Wojick

                      Kooi, you say “YOU CLAIM….no increase in temps on UAH !”
                      Given that I said no such thing, you clearly have not understand what I am saying. UAH shows about 0.25 degrees C of warming, but it is all coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle, hence all natural. What I said is that there is no evidence of GHG warming, not that there is no warming no warming.

                      As for the rest, beefing up a convenience sample does not change the fact that no valid inference can be made for the population as a whole. Statistical sampling theory is based on probability theory so it requires a random sample of the population. This is a fundamental requirement.

                      In this case the population is all of the points on the Earth’s surface and the parameter to be sampled is the temperature change at each point over time. We have nothing like that. In fact there have been no fixed stations in the oceans, and few on land outside of the developed countries, so we have no sampling data for most of the population. As convenience samples go, this one is extreme.

                      Regarding models you might look at my article today:
                      http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/26/proposed-principles-for-use-of-speculative-models-in-federal-rulemaking/.

                    • Robert

                      Actually you cited your article which says :”
                      But the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period, where it should be if it were caused by greenhouse gases. The satellites show no warming at all over this crucial time. This zero warming strongly suggests that the surface statistical models are wrong.”

                    • David Wojick

                      Yes, but the period referred to is 1978 to 1997, just prior to the giant El Nino that looks to have caused the only warming in the entire record. It is the the surface statistical model warming during this period that spawned the global warming scare, but the satellites say it never happened.

                    • R. Kooi

                      no fixed ocean stations…no…there are thousands of Smart Buoys.
                      WMO has 11,000+ widely dispersed Digital Stations around the world.
                      NASA and NOAA have a couple thousand….
                      Also tapped are nearly 20,000 Privately Owned and Operated Digital Weather Stations around nearly every city on Earth…

                      and
                      no I won’t look at another of your political Diatribes.
                      ..

                    • David Wojick

                      The smart buoys are not geostationary. They could be but it would be expensive. Some are moving as fast as ships because of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream. Stationary buoys would be swimming all the time so probably have to be nuclear powered.

                      But in any case we are talking about records going back to 1880, so the buoys are irrelevant. Almost all the records are from a few relatively small geographical areas, especially Europe and the US coasts.

                      My understanding is that the number of stations used in the HadCRU, GISS and NOAA models dropped dramatically over the last 50 years. It is argued by some statisticians that this alone may explain the warming.

                      The referenced article, which is not long, explains how the IPCC/CMIP modeling rules arbitrarily limit climate change to human causes, especially CO2. Then the IPCC concludes that only humans have caused climate change. This is circular reasoning, concluding what you first assume.

                      As you can see, my field is not about climate, it is about the reasoning about climate. I am a logician.

                    • With Respect

                      Statistically, might I say, the probability is that David Wojick’s posts are just spinning words to make a rhetorical argument for ulterior agenda rather than a rational one for honest purpose.

                      Buzzword bingo, conspiracy ideation, impossible expectations, redefinition, nitpick, sophism, reference to irrelevant authority, devil words, tribalism, name-calling, appeal to emotion, abuse of logical fallacy, backsliding, story-changing — the tricks of base debate and propaganda aimed to make the worse case seem the better: scrape these practices off these posts and we are left with only a dishonest motive. Statistically.

                      The Red Team model came out of the adversarial example of science and is entirely redundant in climate science at this late date, some six decades into the conversations started by Plass and Lamb about the earlier ideas of Callendar, Arrhenius and Tyndall. Everything in climatology has been Red Teamed since before any of us were born. Heck, the idea climate changes was proven by Lamb’s Red Team exercise attacking the static climate notion that had dominated until his work.

                      Nor is the ‘fundamental’ requirement of statistical sampling theory that the population be absolutely equally geographically distributed in time and space, but that the randomness of the sampling can be demonstrated. That demonstration has been made over and over again, by splitting data into reserve and working sets to show the results are indistinguishable. Further, the major works of expanding the time and space covered by observations, the more intense the predicted effects are shown, as in Cowtan & Way, or Mueller’s BEST project.

                      UAH is a shoddy piece of junk run by prejudiced administrators, compared to the datasets rejected on spurious complaints by Dr. (of semantics) Wojick. We are obliged to notice this bias in his data selection technique.

                      And El Nino cycle?

                      Really, Dr. Wojick, have you no regard for the intelligence of readers? No shame?

                    • David Wojick

                      I have never suggested that proper sampling of the Earth’s surface would be uniformly distributed. In fact that would also be a bad sample. But a proper random sample would almost always include a lot of places in the oceans, as well as places on land where we have no historical data. Put another way, if we designed a system to properly sample the Earth’s surface, it would look nothing like the hugely lopsided distribution of stations that we presently have.

                      As for this argument — “splitting data into reserve and working sets to show the results are indistinguishable” — what puzzles me about it is that it cannot happen. If the overall data set has a significant distribution, as the local temperature anomalies certainly do, then the vast majority of subsets of that data will give results that are quite different from the whole set. They will also be very different from one another the vast majority of times.

                      So if someone is taking random subsets of the temperature data and consistently getting the same result, then something is very wrong.

                      There is no way to manipulate a convenience sample such that it will reliably tell you what the general population looks like.

                      Beyond that, I find it interesting, perhaps even telling, that alarmists cannot argue science without adding a lot of insults.

                    • With Respect

                      Suggested? David — may I call you ‘David’? — you flat out said exactly the words:

                      As for the rest, beefing up a convenience sample does not change the fact that no valid inference can be made for the population as a whole. Statistical sampling theory is based on probability theory so it requires a random sample of the population. This is a fundamental requirement.

                      In this case the population is all of the points on the Earth’s surface and the parameter to be sampled is the temperature change at each point over time. We have nothing like that. In fact there have been no fixed stations in the oceans, and few on land outside of the developed countries, so we have no sampling data for most of the population. As convenience samples go, this one is extreme.

                      You change your story whenever faced with facts inconvenient to your argumentativeness, rather than admit your argument failed. This is a repeating pattern running throughout your posts. The very nature of credibility, of engagement, require good faith; you repeatedly show none, David.

                      Your puzzlement about standard techniques of statistics, your straw man restatements, your bland handwaving of wrong claims, these are not valid. They are logical fallacy Gish galloping along at breathless pace.

                      Don’t count this as insult: this is observation from available evidence. We do not know one another personally. We do not know what one anothers’ faces look like, so cannot insult each others’ looks. We do not know each others’ scents, so your sensitivity to personal attack cannot come from remarks I make about your odors. So while you can toss the label ‘alarmist’ about as a propaganda devil-word, a tribalism, you do not know me well enough to know how very far off the mark you are when tossing that vain sobriquet.

                      If you want to be told, I’m not about alarm, but about economy. In economic terms, your actions are identifiably taste-shifting, information-diluting, merchandising. You are, in short, apparently a shill for sellers who want to keep selling while failing to pay for their waste disposal to the private owners of lands and waters that provide waste disposal services. This makes you an agent of deadbeats, promoting theft of service from private landholders.

                      I would not feel insulted to have that said of me: were it ever true of myself, I would find it cause to amend my ways and be thankful for the insight; were it false, I would make relevant defense and clear the air.

                    • David Wojick

                      The point of the Red Team exercise is not to create the debate, which as you point out is quite old. The point is to officially recognize the debate, which has yet to happen. We have officially recognized alarmism via stuff like the IPCC reports and the National Climate Assessments, etc. The government now needs to include skepticism.

                    • Robert

                      Actually, read the IPCC reports. Long discussion on how there are no measurements supporting temperature rise being caused by natural forcings.

                      Science is debated every day. In every journal.

                    • With Respect

                      Debate is the opposite, enemy of science. Debate is the primitive practice of cultish ancient Greek political classes seeking to make the worse case seem the better by irrelevant reference to authority, abuse of logical fallacy, and manipulative appeal to emotion to sway an audience until the next debate. That’s how old debate is, and how wrong.

                      Science has its audience hold exact solely inference only from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation leads to amended or new inference.

                      Official recognition of debate? You mean like the Indiana Pi Bill? Of course you do. The fact is that there is official recognition already, from properly appointed jurists, applying the codified precedents of law in such measures as the Daubert standard.

                      You’re either wilfully ignorant of the actual state of things — which given your famed 1992 story we cannot call accidental or from naivete — or misrepresenting on purpose, again.

                      This shamelessness of yours, is it rooted only in greed, or is it from some past traumatic loss?

                      Was your candidate defeated in the Primaries, and you’re still nursing that ancient grudge? Was it Buchanan? Duke?

                    • R. Kooi

                      That is how EARTH WARMING has occurred over the last centuries that we have …….El Nino’s drive up the temp…there is a little adjustment…a plateau or a slight decline…then another El Nino and up they go again….

                      2014 thru 2017 are a RECORD in and of themselves…
                      A LARGE EL NINO….NO FOLLOWED by a cooling or a leveling off….but a continued record warming.

                      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/temperature-figure2-2016.png

                    • R. Kooi

                      YOU SAY…I assume with a straight face…though I am smiling broadly at what you just said:
                      .
                      “The ocean statistics are even worse”
                      .
                      thousands of digital Ocean Buoys track and report a remarkable warming of the worlds oceans.

                      “….Putting Ocean Heating Into Perspective

                      The amount of global warming which has gone into the oceans over the past 55 years is quite impressive.

                      “The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43×1022 J yr-1 for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9×1022 J”

                      This is an immense amount of energy being added to the oceans which Levitus et al. put into perspective (emphasis added):

                      “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                      Levitus et al. note that of course this heat won’t be instantly transferred to the atmosphere (fortunately!), and that this comparison is simply intended to illustrate the immense amount of energy being stored by the oceans.

                      This heating amounts to 136 trillion Joules per second (Watts), which as Glenn Tramblyn noted in a previous post, is the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima “Little Boy” atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a 55-year period. And Levitus et al. note that this immense ocean heating has not slowed in recent years – more of it has simply gone into the deeper ocean layers….”

                      https://skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

                    • David Wojick

                      The UAH graph shows just what I am talking about. There are three distinct phases.

                      From 1979 through 1997 we have an aperiodic oscillator. It is oscillating roughly about the -0.1 line, with no warming. From 1998 through 2002 we have the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle, which of course has no trend, being a single cycle. From 2002 until the end there is again an aperiodic oscillation with no warming. But the latter period is around 0.25 to 0.3 degrees warmer than the first flat period.

                      So yes there is warming, but it is all coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. (If you cannot see this obvious pattern, then I cannot help you.)

                      There is simply no evidence of GHG warming in this pattern.

                    • R. Kooi

                      There is a little UAH FLY in your ointment !

                      FROM THOSE LEADING
                      CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS.
                      .
                      A STUNNING ADMISSION:
                      The UAH’s Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy….
                      —both leading deniers?

                      or is that TOO,TOO, NEGATIVE FOR YOU ? ?

                      —reported just last month that the UAH data shows a
                      “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”
                      NO PAUSE !
                      NO HIATUS !
                      sure as hell, NO COOLING !
                      SPENCER:
                      “my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
                      between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is
                      undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
                      satellite which has a decaying orbit…”

                    • David Wojick

                      Given the flat-step-flat pattern that I just explained, the overall linear trend is meaningless. Science is about specifics.

                      Plus we now have a fourth phase at the end, the recent El Nino-La Nina cycle that has yet to play out. It too might lead to a warming step, but it is too soon to tell. In any case there is still no evidence of GHG (or just CO2) warming. Oh and the pause is still there between the El Nino cycles, as well as from 1978 to 1997. It is almost all “pause.”

                      But I see that you would rather shout than listen. A common trait with alarmists.

                    • Robert

                      And they get upset when called denialists….
                      “the supposed increase in Earth system heat content,”

                      “..no significant GHG warming at all.”

                      “..no observational evidence of any GHG warming..”

                      And the fallback after it will be pointed out there is no science supporting those claims

                      “..and in any case cannot be due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.”

                      Which point pretty directly to the funding of this degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic..”

                    • R. Kooi

                      There are nearly 1000 web site / Opinion Media…designed and funded to propagate the ‘MASSAGE’ of ANTI – GLOBAL WARMING….and INCOSEQUENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE….

                      thousands of blogs where RANK amateurs put their “OWN” spin on ANTI SCIENCE, ANTI LOGIC, ANTI GLOBAL WARMING.

                      TO FEED THOSE SITE, there have been set up 100+-
                      “THINK TANKS” to Critique any and all scientific reports, to find the most outrageous comments made by outlier science…
                      to create reports and studies the specifically refute major science studies.
                      …follow their references only to find that the references,
                      the appeals to authority…say nearly the exact opposite of what they are used express.

                      They intend to deluge science with science fiction.

                    • Robert

                      Well said,
                      (Except not really necessary to denigrate science fiction, at least most of SF are based on some science 😉 )

                    • David Wojick

                      In 1992 the US signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) making alarmism official Federal policy, which it sadly still is. A Red Team exercise could change this.

                      I had been off working in defense policy (the wacky world of weapons) when I heard about the UNFCCC, so I returned to the even wackier green policy world. In fact I recall the day I heard the news because I was lecturing at the Naval Research Laboratory on non-linear dynamics, also called chaos theory.

                      That the climate system is chaotic is very important. It might even explain all of the warming, because chaotic systems oscillate naturally under constant forcing. Constant solar input plus chaos could explain things like the Little Ice Age and the warming since then. There has been some research into this “chaotic climate hypothesis” but the concept is little known in the climate science community.

                    • OK. Now I know what happened in 1992. But I am no closer to understanding why you feel it is so important to fight “alarmism”.

                      You are a bit like someone standing in a burning building insisting that there is no cause for alarm because the smoke detectors and/or sprinklers didn’t go off.

                      You also seem to be totally unaware that climate change is a SYMPTOM and not the problem. The problem is that for some considerable time (but especially the past 250 years), mankind has abused the planet, decimating biodiversity through overuse, over-fishing, over-population, polluting the soil, water and air, blowing up mountains, draining wetlands, draining aquifers and on, and on, and on.

                      Whether the earth is warming due to chaotic climate or carbon dioxide matters only to the extent that we can do something about the latter, and not much about the former.

                • Robert

                  “How do I get some of this money?”
                  Pretty sure the paper discusses sources ….. so maybe read it, and send requests.

                • Robert

                  Thanks for your off the cuff, unresearched comments.
                  Paper referenced was published in 2013.
                  Plenty of time for any organization listed in the report to have written a formal rebuttal.

                  • David Wojick

                    The numbers are probably right, Robert; it is their interpretation that is absurd. They are including the full budget of organizations with hundreds of employees, that have maybe one person doing climate stuff. Thus their numbers are two orders of magnitude too high.

                    For example, Cato has a eight story building full of people in downtown DC. I imagine their annual revenue is in thew tens of millions of dollars. They have just one person doing climate skepticism — Pat Michaels — and even he does not do it full time. They also fund occasional small outside projects, including by me. Here is an example:
                    https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

                    I doubt the climate alarmism related stuff amounts to one percent of their annual budget.

                    • Robert

                      Again. The research is from 2013. So even in the world of “too slow” academic journals, there’s been plenty of time to write a rejoinder, a rebuttal, and comrehensively research piece.

                      Yet, all we get is your empty assertions.

                      6th graders, average 6th graders can’t get away with that.

                      Why should you, a degreed self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” think it’s ok?

            • Robert

              Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
              Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky … Show more
              BioScience, bix133, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix133
              Published: 29 November 2017

              “Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.”

              “…we do have industry activists …”

              • David Wojick

                Let’s see. Surface warming is probably not real, the polar bears are doing great and the Arctic sea ice decline is not evidence of global warming. So this article is standard alarmist trash, of which there is great stock in the “pal reviewed” literature and the politically correct scientific trade groups.

                That blogs facilitate skepticism is true and a great thing. A way around the green and government propaganda. Here we are, doing good.

                • Robert

                  A bit on how those “…blogs facilitate skepticism…”

                  Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.” http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en ” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.” To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.” Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere By Bart Verheggen https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/ longer https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/ …and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

                • Robert

                  “Surface warming is probably not real.”
                  “..decline is not evidence of global warming.”

                  Oh, let’s see. Who to trust? A self described “…more or less full time …” “…professional skeptic…” who can’t bring evidence
                  OR what the actual published science says:
                  The science:
                  A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

                  WHAT WE KNOW
                  THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                  The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                  What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

                  What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

                  Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                  European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

                  Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

                  republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

                  George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

                  EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

                  And the science condensed :

                  D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                  Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                  • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                  • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                  • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                  • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                  • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                  • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                  SPM WG1 AR5

          • J T

            We should throw them the hell out of here, untwist the gun barrel in front of their building, and turn it into NRA Headquarters.

          • R. Kooi

            An ACTIVE environmental movement has been around since the 1800’s and the killer smog events throughout that century.

        • TreeParty

          The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
          The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
          Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.
          The Montreal Protocol is another example of a societal response to a very real and present danger that science warned us about. Your right to pollute the atmosphere with chlorofluorocarbons must take a back seat to the rights of all of the ecosphere not to get fried by ultraviolet radiation. This is a fine example of mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. The goal of this exercise of (environmental) “power” of international sanctions is not to subjugate people; it is to protect them from “the tragedy of the commons” that would ruin their lives.
          So the “scares” that you deride are actually the warnings that scientific research NEEDS to contribute to the public discourse on the environmental effects of our economy. Environmentalism is your friend, even if you are not astute enough to realize it; or unless you are a venal sociopath like our current POTUS who doesn’t give a fig about anyone else, including posterity.

          “In the climate case we do have industry activists whose goal is money making for their companies, especially the renewables industry.”
          If you think that the fossil fuel industry is not spending BIG BUCKS to sow doubt about AGW, then you are not as smart as I was giving you credit for…

          • david russell

            The weather keeps getting better and better in more and more places. So far our climate is just fine…. much better than our last climate (the Little Ice Age)

            • TreeParty

              Yeah, the folks in Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico, etc. etc., had to really love THEIR climate this summer! Some mighty fine weather there, never better…
              Your statement is WAY too subjective to count for much, but nice try. And remember; it isn’t the climate that is the problem, it is the climate CHANGE. Specifically, the RATE OF CHANGE of global temperature, which constitutes the threat…

              • david russell

                How’s this: All extreme weather events are either in decline or show no trend at all. Texas, Florida and Puerto Rice enjoyed until this year one of the longest major hurricane droughts in the past 2 centuries.

                Warmer is better. People prefer to retire in Florida, not Newfoundland. About an order of magnitude fewer people die annually from too much as from too much cold.

                40% of the worlds humans live in the tropics. That’s projected to grow to 50% by mid-century.

                • TreeParty

                  How about come citations for some of these highly subjective opinions? Warmer is better? For polar bears and penguins? No….
                  How’s this: an actual link to an article that proves that virtually all categories of “extreme weather events” are increasing:
                  https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/
                  and
                  https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/summer-storms/

                  “About an order of magnitude fewer people die annually from too much as from too much cold.”
                  Is this sentence representative of the care which you invest in your analyses? Just wondering…

                  • david russell

                    Both links are just lies. I’m not going to go through every extreme weather event, but as for hurricanes, annual accumulated cyclonic energy peaked in the mid-1990’s as can be seen here:

                    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=uHbUh0ey&id=A3D8312FFDAF78729FFF795CF7FC9D604A8C9F76&thid=OIP.uHbUh0eyfKgklJDq4tnIOgHaED&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2ficecap.us%2fimages%2fuploads%2fACE.jpg&exph=896&expw=1636&q=accumulated+cyclonic+energy&simid=608014367208442122&selectedIndex=27&ajaxhist=0

                    I wouldn’t believe Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth to give the correct time of day.

                    Force 3 and stronger tornadoes peaked in the 1970’s. You can google this for yourself.

                    Fires, floods, acreage under drought conditions have been stable (better: trendless) for decades.

                    • TreeParty

                      1) No, both links are not lies. In fact, that claim is a category error, since both links are obviously real and are full of information. You may disagree with the information – if you do, you are welcome to challenge it with any credible evidence you have.
                      2) Your distrust of Kevin Trenberth says a lot more about you than it does about a distinguished and honored scientist.
                      3) The accumulated cyclonic energy graph you linked is almost seven years old. Here’s a newer version:
                      http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_running_ace.png
                      While it is true that the ACE “peaked in the mid-1990’s”, one can also easily see that the annual ACE’s are rising over time. Between 1970 and 1990, the global ACE was above 1600 about 5% of the time and below 1200 almost 20% of the time; while since 1990, it has been above 1600 more than 50% of the time, and below 1200 for only 15% of the time. Over the 46 year period, that constitutes an upward trend.
                      4) In terms of the effect on human communities from cyclonic storms, it is the precipitation that is most damaging; global warming is increasing the precipitation significantly due to the warmer waters that spawn the storms, but ACE measurements do not even capture the precipitation or its effects. So that ACE is not the best measurement of the “extremeness” of these storms.
                      Let me indulge in a Russellism here: everywhere you look, 100 year storms (and flooding events) are becoming 30 years storms. (Not to mention wild fires in California, northern Canada, etc.)

                    • david russell

                      I’d say you proved my point and destroyed your own by the above. Moreover you provide not a scintilla of evidence one way or the other about global annual trends in precipitation. Nor do you have any clue as to why hurricanes form (it’s not from warmer waters).

                      The chart clearly shows ACE about at where it was in 1970, so “No upward trend” — despite both global temps and CO2 levels being up markedly since 1970. And 1970 is approaching 70 years ago. The last 20 years, a period when humans added fully 1/3 of the atmospheric carbon omissions since the beginning of the industrial age, show a definite decline in ACE — just like I said.

                      I have no respect for Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth. And in the case of hurricanes both he and you are wrong as I have shown and you (above) confirm.

                    • TreeParty

                      So much wrong, hardly know where to start.
                      1) “1970 is approaching 70 years ago.” Well, yes, in a sense; but since it has not yet reached 50 years ago, saying that it is “approaching 70 years ago” is kind of an unforced error. What’s your point?
                      2) You claim that I “have no clue as to why hurricanes form”, without a “scintilla of evidence” that that is true. When you just keep making stuff up, don’t be surprised when people don’t believe you..
                      3) “The chart clearly shows ACE about where it was in 1970, so No upward trend” – thereby proving your innumeracy. If the ACE number in 1970 was unusually high for that era, but the same number NOW is pretty average, that IS an upward trend. But that’s OK, David; I don’t expect you to understand junior high school math.
                      4) It is clear that in our warming world, extreme weather events, including cyclonic storms, pose more danger to human civilizations. Cherry picking data points to try to disprove the evident trend is disingenuous, bordering on intellectually dishonest. Typical….

                    • david russell

                      Your first point is correct. 1970 was not 70 years ago…. more like 50. My point stands with either 50 or 70. You get credit for catching my error, but it’s a pyrrhic victory on your part.

                      The evidence is that you assume (actually state) warmer waters are responsible for hurricane formation. That’s just not the case. Just to be picky, “lack of evidence” doesn’t equate to “being wrong.”

                      You have no reason to even suspect what the trend was before 1970 because the chart starts in 1970. If you’re going to make up stuff, try to be plausible. FYI, I scored 740 on my SAT math.

                      Your 4th point is just a counter-factual rant. All extreme weather events are either in decline or show no trend.

                    • TreeParty

                      Congratulations on your low score on the SAT math. Mine was 774, but I’M not bragging. English score was 709, so I have pretty decent reading comprehension and analytical thinking chops too.
                      Here is what I believe to explain the formation of hurricanes:
                      https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/hurricanes/en/

                      “Tropical cyclones are like giant engines that use warm, moist air as fuel. That is why they form only over warm ocean waters near the equator. The warm, moist air over the ocean rises upward from near the surface. Because this air moves up and away from the surface, there is less air left near the surface. Another way to say the same thing is that the warm air rises, causing an area of lower air pressure below.
                      Air from surrounding areas with higher air pressure pushes in to the low pressure area. Then that “new” air becomes warm and moist and rises, too. As the warm air continues to rise, the surrounding air swirls in to take its place. As the warmed, moist air rises and cools off, the water in the air forms clouds. The whole system of clouds and wind spins and grows, fed by the ocean’s heat and water evaporating from the surface.”
                      Duly noted that there are several other requirements for the formation of hurricanes that are not listed in this brief overview, including (but not limited to) water that is sufficiently warm.
                      While you probably have some entirely different “story” as to how hurricanes form, I happen to believe this narrative. Which narrative, we should note, DOES state that cyclones “only form over warm ocean waters near the equator.” So your “evidence that I have NO CLUE as to why hurricanes form” is just the usual specious nonsense. The warmer ocean water due to AGW, and the increased water vapor in the air due to AGW, IS making for more precipitation from these storms.

                    • david russell

                      After 8 hours in front of a computer screen addressing all you nit-wits, the attention sometimes lags. I am 70 years old after all.

                      What you miss about hurricane formation is that the relevant metric to formation is a big temperature difference between tropical warmth and polar cold. A warm tropics and a warm Arctic will suppress hurricane formation. Some of the worst hurricanes formed in a much cooler times globally.

                      Of course hurricanes form in the tropics. I never questioned that.

                      By the way, your above is obviously copy/pasted, so I don’t acknowledge that you “knew” of it before yesterday.

                • Peter

                  I lived first 30 years in Eastern Europe. We had every year “Climate Change”, we called it 4 seasons. Now I live 34 years in San Diego. Here we have 2 seasons. Summer and prepare for Summer and I love it.

          • Robert

            Well said!

            And later in this thread, D.W. is shown research on ff effects on the atmosphere and entire ecosystem, his retort is …. ‘I don’t believe it’ W no evidence…..

            And later in this thread, D.W. is shown research on ff $ (and it seems to be primarily $$$ ) , his retort is …. ‘I don’t believe it’ W no evidence…..

            And then they whing on about being called denialists……..

              • Peter

                Should had been controlled and not banned. Just like in many other instances there is overreaction and emotional response instead of rational solution.
                I remember that in seventies Ice Age was coming. 🙂

                • TreeParty

                  Banning DDT WAS a rational solution. And it worked! Banning DDT “worked” to save a number of apex predators (including our national bird and symbol..) just like banning CFC’s was a rational solution, to keep atmospheric ozone from disappearing; and it worked!
                  The “Ice Age was coming in the 1970’s” canard is just a ridiculous, meaningless distraction:
                  https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
                  Nice try, changing the subject…

                  • Peter

                    What about the millions of people in Africa?
                    Did you know that your Cannabis Farms are killing the Spotted Owl that you killed the lumber industry for ?

                    • TreeParty

                      1) The “ban” on agricultural use of DDT in the U.S. did not apply to Africa. Here is a short explanation of how the banning of DDT for agricultural use in the rest of the world likely SAVED millions of lives:
                      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/30/378223/-
                      2) Cannabis farms are not killing the spotted owl; rat poison is killing the spotted owl. These cannabis “farms” are illegal, and so is the rat poison that is killing the owls.
                      3) How determined are you to change the subject? What does any of this distraction have to do with climate change?!

        • R. Kooi

          “The Cuyahoga River has caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. But the fire in 1969, helped spur action that ultimately led to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Later that year, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act.”
          ..
          Events with long histories are predictive of Current Industrial Activity from one country to another…. Dumping Toxic wastes into creeks, brooks, backyards and the atmosphere …. is FAR CHEAPER and FAR MORE BENEFICIAL to a corporations BOTTOM LINE….than corporate
          Goody Two Shoes cleaning up after themselves.
          … “… In 1892, William T. Love tried to build a canal between the two levels of the Niagara River separated by Niagara Falls.

          He didn’t get far
          — his canal was only about 1 mile long and 15 feet wide before he ran out of money and interest in his ideas subsided.

          After the canal was abandoned, it was used by local children for swimming and ice skating, but over time it turned into a local waste repository.

          In 1942,
          the Hooker Chemical Company bought the canal and began dumping chemical waste.
          The company threw in more than 21,000 tons of deadly chemicals packed in 50-gallon drums, and by 1952, had covered the waste with dirt and vegetation. In 1953, Hooker Chemical sold the land to the local school board after telling the board about the dumping and including a clause in the contract releasing them from any legal obligations from future lawsuits.

          The school board ignored the warnings and built the 99th Street School on top of the buried canal.
          The area near the school was quickly developed into subdivisions. Soon after, residents of the neighborhood began to get sick.

          VERY
          SICK !

      • R. Kooi

        ” ‘Silent Spring’

        “Silent Spring wasn’t Rachel Carson’s first book, but it was undoubtably her most influential. It quickly found its way up the New York Times best-seller list after its publication in 1962.

        “Carson first became aware of the dangers of reckless pesticide use in the ’40s after DDT spraying campaigns were begun as part of the Pacific war effort, and she spent much of the ’50s gathering research and speaking out about the issue.

        Predictably,
        the chemical and pesticide industry strongly opposed (and continues to oppose) the assertions put forth in Silent Spring.

        ((Just as Coal Electric Companies Deny the Deadly History of Toxic Waste))

        In particular,
        agricultural company Monsanto was accused of waging an all-out war on the author, spending money and energy to discredit Carson and her work.

        The book inspired millions of people to recognize the toll humans take on the environment and inspired thousands of journalists to turn their attention to environmental issues….”

        Parkinson’s Disease IS NOW TIED intimately to the USE of Pesticides, in particular DDT, so widely used in Agriculture….folks my age, remember my father using DDT foggers to kill mosquitoes around the house…before barbeques.

    • DavidAppell

      Then let’s also require fossil fuel users to pay the costs of their pollution — damage to health and to the environment — instead of socializing it to the public and the government.

      Costs about $200 B/yr.

      Deal?

      • CB

        “let’s also require fossil fuel users to pay the costs of their pollution”

        Sounds fair to me.

        How about we require fossil fuel companies to pay the costs of their disinformation?

        This propaganda outlet has been racking up quite a bill…

        “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

        http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

        “Fixing the planet could cost younger generations $530 trillion if nothing is done about climate change”

        amp.businessinsider.com/climate-change-will-cost-future-generations-trillions-2017-7

        • Siding WithConservatives

          The green movement has cost the world $8,908,398 trillion so far. We can not afford this. Fossil fuels are abundant and clean we should use them while developing affordable market based solutions (not government subsidies / tax payer corporate welfare) for non fossil fuel energy sources.

      • david russell

        Fossil fuels already subsidize govts greatly. Taxes are paid from the well-head (severance taxes) to the pump (excise taxes) and all along the way.

        AGW so far has been a good thing for humanity and to the extent fossil fuels have been the cause they should be reimbursed for their public service.

          • david russell

            Actually since I DO own a [domestic} oil company I am indeed in an excellent position to know how much in taxes oilcos pay. You, as a professional chirper aren’t in a position to know much of anything.

            Moreover, globally almost all oilcos ARE THE GOVERNMENT or government controlled government agencies or government majority owned companies.

            You are so ignorant and so proud to be ignorant. You are an ignoramus therefore.

            • CB

              “since I DO own a [domestic} oil company I am indeed in an excellent position to know how much in taxes oilcos pay.”

              I think that’s true!

              …you are not in any position to voice a credible opinion on the subject, of course, and given your long history of dishonesty, there’s very little reason to believe a single word you say.

              …now why did you bother?

              Are you trying to cement your reputation as a liar?

              Is being a repulsive piece of garbage the only way you have ever learned to get anyone to pay attention to you?

              “Fossil fuel subsidies: Estimated to cost between US$455 billion and US$485 billion.”

              http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/09/real-costs-fossil-fuel-subsidies

              • david russell

                I never lie. You lie frequently (as evidenced by your claim above that I’m dishonest). I don’t interact with you to convince you, because you are hapless and hopeless and beneath my pay grade. I interact with you to humiliate you because that is a public service.

                And FWIW, I am indeed in a position to know what taxes Oilcos pay because I pay them. You aren’t in a position to know anything as is evidenced by your posts.

                Let me ask: Do you know there’s a Federal excise tax on every gallon of gasoline at the pump. In many venues there’s also a state and even a local excise tax. Are you aware that the state of Texas levies a 7% severance tax on every barrel of oil produces at the well-head? Did you know that minerals extracted pay royalties on production and much of that comes from Federal or state lands? At evert step of production taxes are paid — by pipelines, truckers, railways, blenders, refiners, shippers.

                  • david russell

                    “Precisely what a Liar would say.” Uh huh. That’s a colossally dumb thing to say even for you. Of course your saying so doesn’t make it true.

                    The way discourse works is that we accept what people say until we have reason not to. Your claim that I’m lying seems to be that because I own an oil company (which would strongly suggest I know what takes oil companies pay) I am none-the-less inclined to lie about it. Sounds pretty dopey when you spell it out, doesn’t it? Bwahahaha

    • R. Kooi

      Green Subsidies are a few billion dollars a year
      …..
      much of that is ‘profitable’ loan guarantees.
      VS.
      Just over $1 TRILLION in subsidies,
      Sweat heart tax breaks to oil & coal companies unique to the COAL & Oil Industry, Sweat heart tax deferrals unique to the COAL & Oil industries,
      Free Infra Structure construction,
      Free Infra Structure maintenance,
      Training Wage supports,
      Foreign Aid to reimburse
      nations for subsidies given to OUR profitable Fossil Fuel Industries etc.

  2. cshorey

    Some background to give this context: 1824 Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

    1859 Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases could bring climate change.

    1896 Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

    1930s A global warming trend since the late nineteenth century is reported. Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

    1938 Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is under way, reviving interest in the question.

    1945 The U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.

    1956 Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

    1957 Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans is not readily absorbed by the oceans.

    1958 Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.

    1960 Keeling accurately measures CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm. The mean global temperature (a five-year average) is 13.9°C.

    1963 Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in the CO2 level.

    1965 At a Boulder, Colo., meeting on the causes of climate change, Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of the climate system and the possiblity of sudden shifts.

    1966 Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.

    1967 The International Global Atmospheric Research Program is established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but climate research is included.

    1968 Studies suggest a possiblity of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.

    1969 Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. The Nimbus 3 satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.

    1971 An SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global climate change caused by humans, and calls for an organized research effort.

    1972 Ice cores and other evidence shows big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so.

    1974 Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate; cooling from aerosols is suspected to be as likely as warming; journalists talk of a new ice age.

    1975 Manabe and his collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models that show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.

    1976 Studies find that CFCs (1975) and methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, which emphasizes the role of feedbacks.

    1977 Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming as the biggest climate risk in the next century.

    1979 A U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring about global warming of 1.5°C – 4.5°C. (*This represents the scientific consensus on the issue ever since; without the fossil fuel industry’s PR pushback, this would have been the point where it was clear humans had to stop burning fossil fuels or accept severe climate disruption).

    1981 Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, a finding that raises confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.

    1982 Greenland ice cores reveal dramatic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. Stong global warming since mid-1970s is reported; 1981 was the warmest year on record.

    1985 Ramanathan and his collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from a rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.

    1988 Ice-core and biology studies confirm that living ecosystems make climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established.

    1989 Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form the Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action. (*Exxon internal documents later show Exxon knew that global warming projections were good science in 1978)

    1990 The first IPCC report says the world has been warming and future warming seems likely.

    1991 Mt. Pinatubo erupts; climate scientists predict a cooling pattern, which will validate (*by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects (*and of the water vapor feedback effect). Studies from 55 million years ago show a possiblity that the eruption of methane from the seabed could intensify enormous self-sustained warming.

    1992 The study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in the same range as that predicted independently by computer models.

    1993 Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade.

    1995 The second IPCC report detects a ‘signature’ of human-caused greenhouse-effect warming; it declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century. Reports of the breakup of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions begin to affect public opinion.

    1998 A “Super El Niño” causes weather disasters and the warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005 and 2007). Borehole data confirm an extraordinary warming trend. Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate.

    2000 The Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with the threat of warming, but the oil lobby convinces the U.S. administration to deny a problem exists.

    2001 Debate effectively ends among all but a few scientists. Warming is observed in ocean basins; the match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse-effect warming.

    2003 Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (in West Antarctica and Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. A deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates the divergence between European and U.S. public opinion.

    2007 The level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 392 ppm. The mean global temperature a five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

    2015 and 2016 are the warmest years on record. Atmospheric CO2 is now 410 ppm.

    • pkwz

      Yeah, right. EVEN if any of that cut and paste job is correct (which it isn’t), it is impossible to generate enough electricity using wind and solar. In fact, all you end up with is creating more pollution and impoverishing the already impoverished third world. It would be far cheaper and simple to just deal with whatever happens in the future in terms of the climate. Probably the climate will change, just like it always has (like when humans didn’t exist yet).

      • cshorey

        You are truly unable to have an adult conversation. Once again, pkwz proves a CFACT lackey unable to bring a single fact to the table. Do enlighten us what was incorrect in my post instead of just claiming it. I don’t just take the claim of people who have proven themselves incompetent.

        • pkwz

          prove that 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years “on record”. What were the average temperatures 1,000,000 years ago? What does the “average” temperature even mean? I’m a professional statistician. Your statistics are just nonsense.

          • cshorey

            When I ask you to show something is not factual, stating you doubt the last bullet point is not cutting it. I already told you I don’t respect your knowledge on this enough to just say “pkwz doubts something, OH NO!”. To answer you’re question 1: GISTEMP, GlobalTemp, HadCRUT4, and JMA data, provided by NASA, NOAA, Met office, and JMA, respectively. Answer 2, I have to look that up, but it would be based on paleoclimate archives and their proxies that cover that time period. Average temperature is a geostatistical average of temperatures at the surface. How is that hard to comprehend?

            • pkwz

              “Paleoclimate archives” and “geostatistical average temperatures”–oh, that’s right, you mean the Nimbus MMTS thermometer network data from 1,000,000 B.C.

              That’s where the missing raw data for the “hockey stick” are stored, right? You must be joking, Shirley. All of the AGW historical warming “data” is just a bunch of guesses based on a bunch of models and doctored data.

              Quick, what was the high temperature in London on 1045? Or Los Angeles in 834? How hard is this question to comprehend. Why don’t you just give up because you’ve lost. The USA won’t be giving a dime to the Paris Scam Deal so your tent has been folded up and handed to you.

              • cshorey

                If one wants to argue paleoclimate archives and proxies, one should probably know at least one. You couldn’t name a single one? Really? You need to try to use actual examples and real data to make these arguments. You really do hit me as hopeless.

              • cshorey

                And look at you ignore the original point you made, that I addressed, to just run off to the next thing you think you just dismiss without proof. I’m thinking you not only lack knowledge, but basic intelligence. You ask for climate data then give as a test the high temperature in London in 1045? Do you even get the difference between weather and climate?

                • pkwz

                  So you don’t know what the temperature was in London on ANY day hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yet you know with extreme accuracy what the AVERAGE temperatures were in the past.

                  Okay. That’s like not knowing how long the Emperor of China’s beard was because nobody was allowed to look at him. But you know his beard’s length because you have the record of 100,000,000 Chinese peasants and their guesses of the Emperor’s beard length. After all, this estimate is very good since it is based on an n of 100,000,000.

                  Yeah right. You AGW cultists have models that are invalid and, thus, are garbage. Which is why you have to fudge your data.

                  • cshorey

                    So you really can’t address the response given, just repeat garbage with no actual backing. pkwz, hard for me to consider less of you, but you’re so good at sucking.

                  • Immortal600

                    Don’t bother with cshorey, he’s a fraud without a clue. Look at his responses to me. He’s a blowhard who doesn’t understand thermodynamics. He shows that in his posts!

                    • cshorey

                      Don’t listen to immortal, he thought he was schooling me on thermodynamics but showed no knowledge of absorption and emissivity, and he confuses the second law of thermodynamics with the first. He only referenced blog sites for his pathetic attempts at rebuttal. Immortal is a perfect example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

                    • Immortal600

                      You really are a fraud. You are confusing the first and second laws YOURSELF!!

                      Te first law states that: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed

                      https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

                      Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from
                      a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to
                      accomplish this flow.

                      (show us Paleo-clown where work is being done for the cooler CO2 molecule to further warm a warmer surface. This ought to be interesting)

                      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

                      About Dunning-Krueger? It seems that blowhards like you use that to project onto others. Do you need me to define ‘projection’ for you? Given that you haven’t a clue about thermodynamics, I might have to.

                      Go away already, you’ve been EXPOSED.

                    • cshorey

                      And this is a great post of yours is Great proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The second law of thermodynamics says the energy moves from a more useful to a less useful form, or to say it another way, the randomness of the system increases with heat exchanges. When thermal IR are is absorbed by CO2, it will either be released in a random direction, in other words some will be redirected back towards the ground, and some of that energy will also be translated to motion of the molecules, and an increase in the average kinetic energy of molecules in a body is called its temperature. I thought you were really trying to talk about the first law of thermodynamics that you cannot create heat, but for your argument neither makes any sense. In your World, a colder blanket will never retain the heat of your warmer body, yet it happens. Go try figuring that one out now. You are not qualified to call anyone a fraud. Find any actually peer reviewed science yet to refute anything I originally posted?

                    • Immortal600

                      You simply just don’t understand what was written. The second law states what I quoted from the source I provided. I didn’t make it up as you just did with this nonsense,

                      “The second law of thermodynamics says the energy moves from a more
                      useful to a less useful form, or to say it another way, the randomness
                      of the system increases with heat exchanges.”

                      That is garbage. Show me where someone said EXACTLY that. Lord Kelvin, Clausius?

                      What you are doing is trying a mealy-mouth way of explaining how energy can violate what I have clearly stated. It (heat) CANNOT go from cold to hot. It is no more simpler than that. YOU can’t explain how it does even with all your hand waving, your blanket statement not withstanding. Your lack of logic shows right there!

                      “In your World, a colder blanket will never retain the heat of your warmer body, yet it happens.”

                      Heat travels in ONE direction, hot to cold. It is that simple. It doesn’t go hot to cold back making the hotter thing even warmer. Why can’t you grasp that? It is the 2nd law in a nut shell. Therefore that blanket isn’t making you any warmer. It is retaining what heat is generated by the source.That is a piss poor example of logic. You people are using that kind of analogy all the time. It doesn’t hold water.

                    • cshorey

                      So you can’t explain how a colder blanket could ever retain your heat? Not surprised with the fact you rely on a single source for your definition of the laws of thermodynamics. Please go to physics forum and tell them that the second law does not indicate that transfers of energy go from a more useful to a less useful state, or that the order involved in the change increases. Enjoy getting laughed at. I suggest you try looking at more than one source for your thermodynamics if you’re getting so confused with such a basic definition. I remember yesterday when you were done with me. Funny that. I’ll try to lead you by the hand. A blanket absorbs the heat until it is in equilibrium with your body, and then the two raise temperature in concert as the blanket redirects some of your heat trying to go from your warmer body to the colder room. Now prove the surface of the Earth and its atmosphere can’t do the same. Perhaps you’ll learn some real physics. Here is another for you, how does your car interior with the windows rolled up get hotter inside than outside with the wonky way you think physics works?

                    • Immortal600

                      You are so full of it. There is no use interacting with a blowhard like you who doesn’t even understand the thermodynamics definitions given you.

                    • Immortal600

                      Asswipe, you asked for peer review. You got it. It isn’t the only peer reviewed paper out there that challenges AGW dogma.

                    • cshorey

                      Hey dick for brains, you still haven’t explained how your car gets warm or a blanket keeps you warm. Your peer reviewed articles has been rebutted. You lose in every way.

                    • Immortal600

                      I explained it, you didn’t understand it. Your simpleton analogies don’t explain how you can’t grasp the second law of thermodynamics. You want to make up quotes. Your a real riot, shorey. Your dumb as a rock, boy.

                    • Immortal600

                      “Your peer reviewed articles has been rebutted.”

                      NOT BY YOU. you don’t even comprehend the math involved. Stick to Paleo proxies. They’re more your speed. LMAO at the simpleton.

                    • Immortal600

                      Given that you don’t understand thermodynamics, yes, you need to rebut it. But we both know you can’t.

                    • cshorey

                      Thanks for letting us know you don’t know how science proceeds. Two blog sites and a rebutted article against all the peer reviewed history I originally posted. I posted that to see if any of you could add any real science perspective to it. You surely can’t. Have you figured out blankets and cars yet? Have you figured out Hans Suess’s work? Of course you haven’t. You haven’t shown a shred of climate science knowledge yet. Have you asked your physicist friends if its wrong to say the second law of thermo says energy will go from a more useful to a less useful form, or that the order decreases? Did you get them looking at you like you’re mentally deficient? I’ve been looking at you that way for days. None of your attempted insults come close to touching me. You are too far down the ladder for your shots to reach.

                    • Immortal600

                      Then what are you doing responding to me? I know you haven’t a clue but that doesn’t bother me. I am just laughing at you. Anyone reading these comments can tell you are out to lunch starting with your very first post as if that proved anything but that you are a true believer. Your thought process is so shallow you think your blanket analogy means something. I haven’t bother to show you exactly why it is wrong because you just wouldn’t understand it. Your constant attempts at explaining the second law of thermodynamics as ” says energy will go from a more useful to a less useful form, or that the order decreases?’ is laughable. That doesn’t show how a CO2 molecule cooler than the surface can warm the surface further.

                      Go learn some thermodynamics before you come back.

                    • cshorey

                      So you can’t figure out a car or blanket? Too bad, so sad. Haven’t asked any physicists about the second law yet? Brace yourself to be corrected. I know one of us has tutored physics at the college level. May I ask how many credits in college physics you have or will that be too embarrassing for you? What grade did you get in boundary layer mechanics? What grade did you get in thermodynamics that you feel in a position to judge anyone else? Did you get a college degree?

                    • Immortal600

                      None of your questions can hide the fact that you know nothing about thermodynamics and whoever you tutored should get their money back. Go troll somewhere else.

                    • cshorey

                      No cars, no blankies. No seeing how these relate to your precious blog post. I tell you exactly why you’re thermodynamics is limited at best, and all you can say back is “no I’m not, you are”. Some content would help you not look so trollish yourself.

                    • Immortal600

                      I have provided you with definitions with links substantiating. You have provided a made up quote with no documentation. Case closed.

                    • cshorey

                      Source: All About Science.
                      Second Law of Thermodynamics – Increased Entropy
                      The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

                      “Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
                      I figured you probably don’t have any physicist friends to ask. So I brought one to you to tell you to go back to school and stop pretending you know something.

                    • Immortal600

                      Smoke and mirrors. None of the stuff you just posted shows how a cooler CO2 molecule warms a warmer surface. You just don’t get it.

                • pkwz

                  Your premise is false: There is no such thing as AGW. So all of your “evidence” is just rhetoric.

                  It’s the same as asking, “So, Mr. Trump, when did you stop beating your wife?”

                  The “scientific community” that hoisted this fraud of “Man Made Global Warming” is a giant criminal enterprise.

                  I remember when the Ecology Movement started in the 1960s saying things like humanity would be doomed by 2000. Then there was the “oil crisis” which claimed that all of the world’s oil would be gone by 2000. Then there was the “population bomb” that would cause the world to starve to death by now. Then there was the coming ice age. And, of course, the USA was going to end humanity with its vast nuclear arsenal.

                  And now we have Global Warming/Climate Change.

                  Talk about a record that sucks….

                  • cshorey

                    You were alive in the 60’s?! I would have sworn you were a teenage boy with the nature of your comments. Your more advanced age may explain your incontinence problem. You’re spewing verbal diarrhea everywhere. Try using actual science to argue science, that means back up your diarrhea with more solid peer reviewed sources. Then you might MAGA (make arguments generally acceptable).

        • pkwz

          BTW, your side is losing this argument. Why do you even come here and post nonsense? Your side can’t even power a small portion of a sparsely populated country like Australia with your unreliable, expensive and inefficient windmills and solar panels. If green energy was so good, it wouldn’t need HUGE government subsidies.

          Get it?!

          • cshorey

            You must be speaking of the US Federal Govt level only. Don’t get too myopic. Are you saying climate science should get more money from industry? Sure that would be fine I suppose. As for your doubts on renewables, you really need to talk to some NREL people. You’re just not up to date.

        • pkwz

          You haven’t presented scientific “facts”–the entire AGW movement is not based on science. The proof is that the idiots promoting this propaganda proclaimed that the “Science is Settled!”

          That statement is the antithesis of science for science is never “settled”. It is also completely irrelevant that AGW is “proven” correct because 93% of scientists said so. 93% of what kinds of scientists? Sociologists, psychologists, ecologists. Just pure nonsense and this proves that the climate scam people don’t even understand anything about how science is done.

          For a well established and confirmed theory can be shot down as wrong with a single experiment! And if the new experiment is replicated and validated, that’s all that is needed to toss out the old “science” and replace it with the new theory.

          The science of AGW is hardly rigorous or even objective since the lunatic crowd of “scientists” has consistently blocked and censored opposing scientific results and experiments. There is NO objectivity or free flow of ideas when it comes to the Global Warming Scammers. They shut down the dissent and label them as “deniers”. And many in the AGW crowd would like nothing better than to permanently silence the opposition.

          So go ahead and spout your nonsense. You’re losing the war now for Trump is shutting off the tap. No extortion payments and no more tax incentives for failed technologies that do nothing except make life miserable for the poor while destroying our ability to compete in the world market.

          You can’t be reasoned with. Your idiotic talking points are old and irrelevant. MAGA!

    • David Wojick

      Actually cshorey, many of your many statements are erroneous, for the simple reason that they exhibit the fallacy of false confidence, which is the basis for climate alarmism.

      For example, you say that in 1896 Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. He does no such thing. He merely calculates what the abstract forcing of CO2 might be. Forcing is not warming and humans are not involved.

      You then say that in the 1930s a global warming trend since the late nineteenth century is reported.

      False again, since “reported” implies reality. There was no way in the 1930s to know what the global temperature was. Even today the surface statistical models are completely unreliable, since they are based on a questionably adjusted convenience sample.

      Plus you conveniently fail to include that global cooling since the 1940s was then “reported” even though CO2 levels may well have continued to rise. There is a whole host of issues here that you simply skip over.

      I could go through your entire list of alarmist speculations claimed to be established facts, plus your artful omissions, but why bother? Your errors are manifold, glaring and common.

      Then too, your political claims are simply ridiculous. You clearly have no idea what the climate debate is actually about.

      • cshorey

        Hi David,
        Thanks for the first reasoned response on this thread. Thank you for giving the exact bullet points you are addressing. That being said, it seems you are asking each tree to be the forest, and find each fails in that, you reject each as a tree, and thus see no forest. When you say Arrhenius didn’t compute warming from human emissions, that is incorrect. He definitely did estimate human output but was off in some of his assumptions. He assumed the oceans would take up 5/6 of the human produced CO2 (why would he note that if he wasn’t calculating human effect?), which means it would take around 3000 years for CO2 to double. It is the Ravelle bullet point that shows us it is closer to 1/5, and so we will probably double in the next 50-100 years. Arrhenius also gave a definitive answer to if water can drive climate change, and showed it can’t with a 10 day residence time, but CO2 could drive a climate shift. So yes, Arrhenius calculated the amount of CO2 added by humans then calculated the amount of warming from a doubling of such introduced CO2 and got a climate sensitivity of around 5-6 deg C.
        You then say that it is false that a global warming trend was noted in the 1930’s. We have been able to give an average surface temperature of the planet for about 160 years, and since you need 17 years of record to see a climate signal, 1930’s is completely in range. If you claim that you can’t measure average surface temperature, you have to prove it against all the peer reviewed literature that says you can within error bars. All global average T reports have error bars, and beyond those we can see trends. There was definitely an upward trend from 1900 – 1930. It would be more useful for you to note that this was correlated strongly with solar output and the US dustbowl. Human interference didn’t really start pulling out of the natural background until the 1980’s.
        I am happy to mention the 1940’s – 70’s cooling, as it has been fully explained by aerosol pollution. I definitely truncated the list, but feel free to add in any of the other dropped stages of our knowledge.
        That is all you have managed so far, but I’d love to hear if you feel there are any other issues in the recorded history of climate science.

        • Immortal600

          So, you didn’t think my response to you was “reasoned”? Why? Did you even bother to look at the links?

          • cshorey

            You never addressed a single bullet point specifically, nor gave actual evidence to support your contentions. Blog sites are not peer reviewed science by any stretch of the imagination.

            • Immortal600

              That figures. You won’t look at any evidence that can challenge your beliefs. Got it. Yours is the excuse all you AGW believers use when you can’t refute contrary evidence to the AGW theory. If it is in a “blog” it is to be ignored. You have a closed mind and further dialogue is futile.

              • cshorey

                You’re being a jackass. I didn’t say I didn’t read them, I said I found them to be blog sites with no peer review. The first link was idiotic in thinking a human input being smaller than natural inputs would have no ability to increase absolute amounts 30%. Thats stupid. If 100 marbles go in and out of a bucket each day that has 1000 marbles in it, and then I start putting in 100 + 5 each day but still only remove 100, you will quickly increase the absolute amount in the bowl. The blogger isn’t qualified to discuss the topic, so thanks for sharing this piece of shit. Do you get why I don’t respect your arguments? Blog sites? Really that’s the best you can do. The second link is just as stupid. What does it say about the blogs audience (you) that J has to be explained as Joules, m as meters, etc. Do you think a real science paper would do that? The bloger’s model clearly states, “Now let us add a second black body surface spherical shell concentric with our first sphere having a radius RC and with vacuum between the inner sphere and the outer spherical shell. ” Why the fuck would you do that? The atmosphere is a greybody, not a blackbody by any stretch of the imagination. No wonder this guy’s model does not comport with reality. But thanks for the garbage, and now you know why I find you a bore.

                • Immortal600

                  Hey, I didn’t know if you read them. They were both from physicists with PHD’s, guys probably smarter than you. Your attempt to show Dr. Berry is wrong was a joke, right? He is an ATMOSPHERIC PHSYICIST. What are you?

                  The second guy was explaining things beyond your level of understanding, I suppose. YES, real science papers do explain terminology, your childish insults aside.

                  If you don’t have anything halfway intelligent to respond with, don’t bother.

                  One more thing, Dr. Berry’s paper is under peer review.

                  • cshorey

                    Correct, you did not know if I had read them, and assumed that I had not. You also seem to assume these people have more knowledge on climate science than I because their BS comports with your biases. Like I said, you cannot model the atmosphere as a blackbody. If it were you couldn’t read this.

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry has more knowledge about atmospheric physics than you do. Tell me, am I wrong? Your expertise is in Paleoclimatology. How much do you actually understand thermodynamics? I wonder. I will take Dr. Berry’s word over yours, a nobody, any day of the week. You have a great day.

                    • cshorey

                      The day is going great! I’m about to head to a talk on how satellite data helps us further understand the climate change we are currently going through. Now, why are you trying to make this a cockfight? Why don’t you address the atmosphere being modeled is a black body?

                    • Immortal600

                      The paper says that AGW advocates want to consider the atmosphere as a blackbody, Dr. Anderson says that is in error. The reason advocates do that is to mathematically show that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is. The issue of climate dynamics falls into the territory of thermodynamics. How much energy is the earth absorbing and how much of that translates into heat and higher temperatures. Paleo reconstructions don’t take any of that into account. AGW advocates claim that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then redirects it back to the earth making it warmer. That is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A cooler CO2 molecule cannot transfer HEAT to a warmer surface. A textbook in thermodynamics says this:

                      “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts:
                      temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with
                      thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each
                      other.”

                      That is where AGW advocates get it wrong. Higher energy does not necessarily mean higher temperatures. It comes down to where that heat energy is going and what it translates into. Dr. Anderson shows how the AGW folks get the math wrong. You want to castigate the man for spelling out what ‘j’ or ‘m’ means. Really?

                      If you think those guys are wrong why aren’t you going to THEIR websites and showing them their errors. As I have said, Dr. Berry’s paper on why humans are not responsible for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is undergoing peer review. Many people have tried to refute his model with no success. Why don’t you give it a try?

                    • cshorey

                      So when a molecule of CO2 absorbs thermal IR, what do you think happens after that? So a scattered photon in your and Dr. Berry’s world can only be scattered upward? Who is violating physics here? I looked into Dr. Berry more, and am not impressed. Why does a Cal Tech grad go to lower ranked graduate programs (Dartmouth and Reno were low ranking in the 60’s)? That indicates poor undergraduate work. I don’t see that he has any real background in atmospheric physics as you claim. Great one to hang your denial of actual peer reviewed science on. No one ever thought the atmosphere should be modeled as a blackbody. To repeat, that’s stupid.

                    • Immortal600

                      Your first statement shows that you haven’t a clue. I just told you it can’t warm the surface further. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is clear on that.

                      You have no clue about thermodynamics, so what do you do? Talk about where someone went to school. WEAK. Dr. Berry has probably forgotten more about atmospheric physics than you ever knew.

                      Dr. Berry’s model isn’t really addressing the thermodynamics issue, Dr. Anderson’s is. The fact that you reference Berry’s work shows you really didn’t bother to try and GRASP what he was stating. Nor did you bother with Dr. Anderson because you thought HE was treating the atmosphere as a blackbody. Your fellow zealots are doing that and YOU don’t even realize it.

                      You are a real lightweight when it comes to climate dynamics yet you think your study in Paleoclimatology makes you an expert. Nah! You’re just another blowhard fraud. We are done.

                    • cshorey

                      And you’re response shows you don’t understand absorption and emission and how they relate to thermodynamics. Glad we’re done, you brought zero peer reviewed science against over a century of peer reviewed science. Claim you know something about this all you want. I know you don’t. Thanks for the proof.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yeah, I know. THe AGW crowd insist on having “peer review”, when all it says is that the foxes have ok’d the raid on the hen house.

                • David Wojick

                  There is no reason to believe that natural sinks and sources constantly balance. Given that these are a myriad of independent oscillators it is statistically impossible for them to constantly balance. On the contrary we would expect to see continuous natural variability in natural CO2 concentrations.

                  • cshorey

                    Reason; the CO2 levels measured in ice cores, stomata density, and carbonate concretion delC13 all indicate that before the industrial revolution during human history the CO2 was very stable at 280ppmv. This happens due to the natural balance. We know it has to be balanced or we would see subsystems in wild opposing swings, but we don’t. It was stable at 280ppm.
                    Another reason; atmospheric delC13 is being diluted over the past century. We can measure this far back using tree rings. Previous to the industrial revolution, the delC13 acted in a balanced way so that decay in tree rings was predictably systematic.
                    So yes, there definitely is a reason to know that the natural sinks and sources have historically been balanced. We don’t see continuous natural variability, but we do see it shifting with past climate change. Seeing as I can’t find any validity in this post, I’m wondering if you had a source to back up what you just said. It made no sense from the science point of view.

                    • Sorry, but the natural balance has ranged fairly widely due to dry years with fires caused by lightening and volcanoes where we have had periods when thousands were erupting annually.

                    • Sorry, but see the Vostok Ice Core Studies graphs that cover 450,000 years and that is exactly what we see. Projections beyond that are based on plant fossils and what we know of the growing ranges of similar modern plants, but there are questions about their actual physiology and temperature tolerances.

                    • cshorey

                      I was wondering what time scale you were going to go for. So we’re now comparing variance of tens of thousands of years to that over centuries? Look, when Milankovitch first postulated orbital forcing, he thought obliquity would cause climate to shift pole to pole or poles to equator and back. But what the ice cores and other archives say is that the orbital forcing causes a global response. This is due to the ice in the north dominating the system, thus driving ocean temperatures, and positively feeding back through the dissolution of CO2. So, the CO2 shifts you are mentioning in the Vostok core are due to century scale adjustments of ocean temperatures. Now we are warming the oceans, as can be measured with the Argos floats. You still have not argued against a CO2 balance of human historical time scales until recently. The values were very constant around 280ppmv.

        • David Wojick

          To push your metaphor, if each argument is a tree then I am a forester. I have been assessing h stength of each tree for 25 years now and alarmism is built on bad wood.

          As for knowing the global average surface temperature i the 1930s, we do not even know it today. See my
          http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/.

          The surface temp statistical models were first developed in the 1980s by Jones and Wigley, but they are no good because all we have are convenience samples and statistical sampling theory is adamant that no inference can be drawn from such samples to the general population, which in this case is global temperature.

          As for Arrhenius, he assumed a build up of human emitted CO2 but that has not happened. The CO2 increase is not composed of our emitted molecules, although the alarmists like to talk like it is. Thanks to the enormous natural CO2 flux, which removes about 25% of the molecules each year, our emitted molecules are pretty much all gone in 5 years or so.

          This leaves the scientific question as to what role, if any, human emissions play in causing the increased CO2 concentration. That question is unanswered.

          Plus of course the question as to what difference, if any, the increase makes in global temperatures is completely open. It is the very point of the scientific debate.

          • J T

            What role do humans play in causing increased CO2 concentration? None, I think. Look to that yellow thing in the sky for answers, and hope that it remains relatively stable. Besides, a few large-sized volcanic burps put more material into the atmosphere than anything we could possibly be doing, no?

          • cshorey

            To further the metaphor, someone put scientific spikes in your trees. Your logic saw is hitting them and kicking back to destroy your own arguments. I had to go read your other article denying that we can measure average global temperature and found no science there except your link to convenience sampling, but I couldn’t see that you showed that there is convenience sampling in climate science since we don’t just look at ground thermometers for that. There are the argos buoys showing ocean warming, there are our GRACE satellites that show shrinking ice mass, we have a steadily rising sea level, and all this is consistent with the actually measured warming atmosphere. If the statistics are so bad, then why did the BEST team, when saying the same thing you are that the data is not reliable, went and looked into the matter with Koch Bros money, and guess what they found . . . the same thing as all the other measures of global average temperature. Apparently smart people can do geostatistics and all come out with the same answer. That does speak to reliability. Now if the atmosphere were not warming, how would you explain rising sea levels with a measured increase in the rate of rise.
            Now back to Arrhenius, you are again not going forward in time to see Ravelle show ~90% of our CO2 staying in the atmosphere and not being absorbed by the oceans. And especially you are not considering the bullet point about Hans Suess. How would you explain delC13 levels in the interior of a tree being 2% higher than the outer rings? If you really understand his work, you would never say “This leaves the scientific question . . . That question is unanswered.” It was answered in the 1960’s.

            • David Wojick

              Shorey, your replies tend to be like shotgun blasts that do not respond to the point at issue. That the surface statistical estimates are based on a convenience or availability sample is obvious. Sampling theory is based on probability theory so having a random sample of the population is fundamental, and we have no such thing when it comes to the population of global temperatures.

              In a random sample most of the locations would be in the ocean and we have no fixed stations there at all, much less for the last 150 years. Combining various ship or buoy samples, from different places over time, some hundreds of miles apart, means you may just be seeing the differences in the places, not in time. On land almost all of the stations are clustered near urban areas in developed countries. Vast areas are completely unsampled. Then they use area averaging which gives different thermometers very different weights. It is all a mathematical joke.

              BEST is actually the worst for two reasons. First they combine a lot of short term records that the other groups rejected. Second they create an estimated global temperature field,, guessing a temperature for every point on earth, which means there is an infinite amount of guessing. Koch was robbed.

              • Thomas Paine

                Nice “moving goalpost” fallacy! I don’t reckon there will ever be enough data for someone who already believes he knows the answer. But that’s no problem. Go ahead and use your Denialist hatchet to chop up all the LST and SST data. You are still left to explain all the first freeze, last thaw data on lakes, rivers, and bays, shifting crop planting zones, shifting ecological zones, and mountains of other climatic data. But inasmuch as you seem to be a case study of Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style, just include Mother Nature as being in on the Warming “Hoax” as well, along with all those national governments, scientific societies, not to mention the Masons, the Trilateral Commission, and the rest.

              • cshorey

                Hi David,
                Sorry you felt that was a shotgun approach. I was trying to give you a bit bigger picture overview of all the proxy measures of increasing energy in the Earth’s exogenic system so you can see that increasing temperature of the atmosphere is consistent, and it would be hard for the atmosphere to cool in an opposite direction of all these other indicators. But since you don’t like direction, we’ll go to the heart of the matter. When average surface temperatures are reported they are handled as temperature anomalies from that position through time. Using anomalies instead of absolute temperature gets you away from all the problems you are raising. If what was being reported was absolute average surface temperature, then your argument would hold (but actually may not be right either – see Jones et. al. 1999 that used both absolute values and anomalies). Seeing as you are arguing against absolute apples when the evidence is anomaly orange, you have not proven anything to anyone with knowledge this fact. Are you not concerned that you have to point to a CFACT post you made as “proof” of anything in a peer-reviewed science milieu? You seem a decent enough scientist though you’ve clearly associated yourself with some suspect organizations (e.g. Heartland, CFACT, NRSP, Greening Earth Society) enough that your credibility in climate science can be called into immediate question, but you should be intelligent enough to get the anomaly issue. But with those associations, I feel you will probably dig in your heels. Let’s see.

                second citation for you:
                http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007%3C1999%3ASATOEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
                Abstract: “Making use of EOF analysis and statistical optimal averaging techniques, the problem of random sampling error in estimating the global average temperature by a network of surface stations has been investigated. The EOF representation makes it unnecessary to use simplified empirical models of the correlation structure of temperature anomalies. If an adjustable weight is assigned to each station according to the criterion of minimum mean-square error, a formula for this error can be derived that consists of a sum of contributions from successive EOF modes. The EOFs were calculated from both observed data and a noise-forced EBM for the problem of one-year and five-year averages. The mean square statistical sampling error depends on the spatial distribution of the stations, length of the averaging interval, and the choice of the weight for each station data stream. Examples used here include four symmetric configurations of 4 × 4, 6 × 4, 9 × 7, and 20 × 10 stations and the Angell-Korshover configuration. Comparisons with the 100-yr U.K. dataset show that correlations for the time series of the global temperature anomaly average between the full dataset and this study’s sparse configurations are rather high. For example, the 63-station Angell-Korshover network with uniform weighting explains 92.7% of the total variance, whereas the same network with optimal weighting can lead to 97.8% explained total variance of the U.K. dataset.”

                third citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature
                The point here is we don’t know the average body temperature of Immortal600, even if he is brain dead, but if his temperature goes up 1degF each day, he might want to get checked by a doctor. The anomaly is important even if you don’t know the absolute average.

                fourth citation: BEST study again, because even Muller who bought the Climategate absurdity couldn’t find a way to use your logic. Muller in testimony to Congress definitely said he found the same as everyone else, that the removal of bad stations reported by Anthony Watts’ site did not affect the anomaly trends, and more recently said what good climate scientists have known for the past few decades, you can’t explain the present climate (since the 1980’s) without taking greenhouse gas forcing into account.

                And then there are all the fingerprinting studies that let us know it is our greenhouse gasses causing the climate change. Future generations will see that the denial of this science by such bad faith arguments as yours caused more harm than good. You have time to rewrite your epitaph. The science in my original post has weathered every attempt to discredit it on this thread.

              • RealOldOne2

                And what makes the ‘convenience sample’ issue even worse is the Great Dying of Thermometers.

                Then it’s made even worse yet because the remaining thermometers are closer to the equator and at lower elevations: https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/McKitrickCriticalGHCNReview.pdf

                “BEST is actually the worst for two reasons.”
                This evaluation of the BEST data says it is flawed because its “scalpel and suture” technique cuts away the low frequency and analyzes the noise: http://stephenrasey.com/2012/08/cut-away-the-signal-analyze-the-noise/

      • Svante Arrhenius published a follow-up book to the 1897 book in1899 correcting and denying everything he said about CO2 heating the atmosphere in the first book, but “warmers” never mention his corrections and denial of his initial hypotheses.

      • cshorey

        And you are now the fourth to reply to me with no peer reviewed data against my original list of peer reviewed work. Thanks for your opinion. Hey, when Guy Calendar made a model in 1938 indicating the Arctic would warm fastest, Antarctica would initially gain ice in its center, or that land would warm faster than over oceans, and all those things have been observed, I assume that is not what you meant by faulty computer models. Or when Smagorinsky and Manabe’s model predicted a warming Troposphere and cooling Stratosphere, and that has been observed, that can’t be what you meant either. What falsified data do you have proof of as well? I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.

        • J T

          Your kind is constantly caught lying about your results, it’s well-documented. That’s how you doomed yourselves and your whole fraudulent effort, and it happened before it could come to fruition. If you were right, you wouldn’t have to lie.
          When the publication One Hundred Scientific Authors Against Einstein came out, Einstein scoffed, and said “If they were right, they’d only need one!” The foolish “97%” figure you like to use is the same thing. More lies and bullsht from the Left.

          • cshorey

            Still no actual science to back up your crap. When Einstein came out with his theory he also said, “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation”. Now figure out how that applies to you today. You reject the science due to your political ideology. I know this because you sure don’t have any science. Thanks for confirming that every CFACT fan has no scientific teeth. I was hoping at least one of you could show me something worthwhile. Not a single one.

    • Could you give a reference to exactly what Fourier said with respect to the atmosphere ? So many of the 19th century refs cited by AlGoreWarmists are either superficial or misinterpretations . It is Fourier’s heat equation which is most fundamentally violated by the notion that spectral filters can “trap” heat in defiance of basic and common sense “law” that heat diffuses from hot to cold .

      There are two issues :

      – the radiative equilibrium of the lumped planet+atmosphere with the power spectrum of the Sun’s disk as source and the other 0.9999946 of our celestial sphere at near 0K as sink . The experimentally testable general computation is at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq . ( And this field is in desperate need to return to an experimentally demonstrated foundation . ) Changes in CO2 can change our lumped spectrum and thus our mean temperature , but given that CO2 is already high optically saturated in its absorptive bands even at these few molecules per 10k of air levels ( a photon in its bands is not likely to get even a couple of hundred meters at sea level without bumping into one ) , that effect , as we have observed is de minimis . In fact , our estimated radiative equilibrium appears to be well below the ~ 278.6 +- 2.3 from peri- to ap- helion of a gray , flat spectrum ball in our orbit — and for that matter below what the albedo of the surface itself would be .

      – The other issue is why the bottoms of atmospheres , whatever their composition or optical properties , are hotter than their tops . This is where the AGW GHG theory has never presented either quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration over , now , decades . It may be unique in the history of politic(ized) science in being a paradigm without analytical foundation .

      In another discussion , the thought experiment was proposed : What if the atmosphere were totally clear — across the spectrum ?

      My first thought — other than that is the sort of question which should required in any undergraduate program in “climate science” — is :

      Would the pressure_temperature “lapse rate” disappear ? That’s where the 33K is .

  3. BernardP

    Canada… Eh? Yes, Canada has almost become a closed country in regards of climate change information. Mainstream run almost daily reports of impending catastrophe and warnings about need for action, duly copy-pasted from European think tanks. The federal government and provinces are implementing carbon taxes AND cap and trade. The few who dare question the orthodoxy are ridiculed and lumped with flat-earthers. Certain localities have inspectors looking into your garbage to check if you have not thrown away recyclable or compostable material.

    Canada is living in an Era of Green Inquisition.

      • John Galt

        Thank you….My 40+ years Engineering career in Energy was cut off at the knees in my most lucrative salary years thanks to misguided mayors, provincial and federal politicians………No income now to even consider alt-renewable options on the home front……so i took up high power rifle target shooting…aiming for long range sniper skills….helps me to get my stress level down!

            • DavidAppell

              Liar. I left engineering school because all my fellow students wanted to talk about was their future salary.

              That was not going to be me, ever.

              • jreb57

                Yeah David. They were going to have to pay off their big government loans. How did the price of a college education increase so much that the average joe can no longer afford one?

              • John Galt

                “ALL my fellow students!”…..is an example of a “sweeping generalization” a form of hyperbole raising suspicion of insincerity.

                One engineering colleague said he wanted a university degree in science but he would have to take biology and he was squeamish about cutting in to live frogs…..so his remaining option at that time was engineering.

                I simply wanted to get a respectable science degree that would lead to a career so i could pay off my vehicle and student loans and i loved math, physics, chemistry etc.

                It was typically those taking the arts degree that thought of us in engineering as too much focused on money and career and not higher ideaologies for more education…

            • DavidAppell

              You’re a liar. I left engineering school after one semester because all anyone wanted to talk about what salary, and because they fed us equations to plug numbers into without showing where they came from.

              I switched to physics and was much happier.

              Why do you find that threatening?

              • jreb57

                “they fed us equations to plug numbers into without showing where they came from.”
                You obviously went to a different engineering than I did. They do teach you math, but also chemistry and physics. Thermodynamics, for example. No one finds you threatening David. Just misinformed.

      • DavidAppell

        It’s right that Canada is trying to control emissions — climate change will last for over 100,000 years, and what we do now matters a lot about the magnitude of that everlasting change.

    • WhiteFalcon

      I sympathize with you. I read an article just today where the scientist said that the Greenies model gives far to much weight to the effects of CO2 and in fact, real temp has increased only some 1.5 degrees centigrade in the last twenty years whereas their model said that it would increase twice that much, and in the troposphere, there had been virtually no change. I expect Al Gore got sick about all this truth coming out/

      • cshorey

        The models said increase twice that with a doubling of CO2 once the system comes to equilibrium. None of that describes Canada. 1.5 is right in line with predictions for Canada though, so . . .

          • cshorey

            Which part of Canada? It’s kind of a big region you know. And you know that it is more practical to talk about local anomalies than the average of the atmosphere over a region. I may not know the average temperature of your whole body, but if you start getting a fever, I bet it could be detected. Again, look at the temperature anomalies and put aside the wildly difficult job of getting an average temperature over a whole region.
            But, that being said, we know the region is warming because part of Canada is in the Arctic Circle, which Guy Callendar predicted in the 1930’s would warm faster than anywhere else. And this has come to pass. This is why Canada is getting such permafrost loss in the north, and sea ice retreat from its shores. Go ask people who live up there and they can tell you all about it. Also interesting was the forrest study in Canada that, while measuring local warming, also noted that the forest was not taking up more carbon, but releasing more from its soil as the degrading bacteria ramped up with higher temperatures. It is a lame job to try to poke holes in known science from a limited perspective. It is better to let actual scientists do their science and report it to you. Please read ACTUAL SCIENTISTS as those who publish peer reviewed science in top science journals.

              • cshorey

                So please be an independent thinker and look it up. Or admit you’re being a David Wojick pawn. Follow this: what is the average temperature of your body, your whole body, all the fingers and toes and hairs and all? I bet you can’t figure it out. Then how would you ever know if you were getting a fever? You measure local anomalies. I have already said clearly to David that he is right that we don’t even try to measure average temperatures, nearly impossible, but we can and do look at station anomalies and they are very telling about the increasing fever. David refuses to respond to this point, and keeps repeating the “you can’t measure the average temperature” infantile garbage. The adults have moved on.

                • DavidAppell

                  I never ever said you “can’t measure the average temperature.”

                  You have me confused for someone else.

                  PS: I’m surprised the Canadian national average isn’t easily found. It is for the US — NOAA publishes it every month, usually with a press release.

                    • TheDudeofVoo

                      Harrison 2015: ”However, the robust nature of the spatial variations of climate change in the past (and future) calls into question whether a focus on global average responses, is sensible.”

                      Harrison, S. P., et al. 2015 “Evaluation of CMIP5 palaeo-simulations to improve climate projections.” Nature Climate Change

                      Gimeno 2015: ”However, global warming is a very uneven phenomenon, impossible to be encapsulated by a single indicator, relative to one subsystem, such as the global average of near-surface atmospheric temperature.”

                      Gimeno, Luis, et al. 2015 “Atmospheric moisture transport: the bridge between ocean evaporation and Arctic ice melting.” Earth System Dynamics

            • “Peer review” is often in question as many of those journals are corrupt, charge for articles and allow employees of authors to be peers. Jim Hansen often had his people acting as his peers.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Tell me what the difference is for Gods’ sake. The term “Celsius” didn’t start being used until thirty or so years ago. What to guess what it means? I’ll tell you since it is probably beyond your ability to research. Celsius means centigrade. DUH!! Now you go and do some deeeeep research and find out why it is called “centigrade.”

          • DavidAppell

            The difference is that “Celsius” has been the standard for a few decades now and “Centigrade” is used only by people who have not kept up with the science.

      • DavidAppell

        Can you prove that Caldiera’s model is wrong?

        IT doesn’t look like it.

        Perhaps then you should remain silent about the science from those far more learned than you.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Yes, and that is in the upper atmosphere, not the troposphere as I remember. At that rate, it will take it a while to melt off the polar ice caps.

          • No, that difference is what has been recorded in North America since 1880 to 2016 for the total average temperature increase as measured by surface stations. Nonetheless, you are right that the polar icecaps are in no danger of melting and it has been recently reported that some glaciers are growing again. Earth’s weather is a very complex system.

            • WhiteFalcon

              Then you are saying that the average increase temp is something like 1.5 degrees centigrade devided by some 135 years?

              • No, I am saying it is 0.8 Celsius or 1.44 Fahrenheit degrees over 136 years which is an amount that is difficult to measure even today for one year to the next. And, one of the moons of Jupiter that has an atmosphere correlates perfectly with that pattern. This tells us the sun is entirely responsible for the changes in our temperature. And, it is consistent with what I found in the atmospheric simulator I designed and produced for “CO2 Is Innocent” you can read and clip copy free at https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com

                • WhiteFalcon

                  I never believed all that BS to begin with. I remember when i was a bit younger, in the 1970s, when they were telling us that we were on the verge of the next ice age, and we were working in 100+ degree heat.

              • Yes, it would be 1.5 degrees C divided by 136 years or 0.0110 degrees C, per year which is an amount we cannot measure reliably now! It is utterly insignificant and will soon turn the other way or more likely it has already.

              • TheDudeofVoo

                IPCC AR5 TS.2.2.1: ”The globally averaged combined land and ocean temperature data, as calculated by a linear trend 5, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 6, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist, about 0.89 [0.69 to 1.08] °C over the period 1901–2012, and about 0.72 [0.49 to 0.89] °C over the period 1951–2012 when based on three independently-produced data sets. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4), the global mean surface temperature dataset with the longest record of the three independently-produced data sets. The warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and the Atlas in Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, when calculated using HadCRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates.”

        • WhiteFalcon

          Sorry about that. Nonetheless it still boils down to dam little which could be the result of many factors, such as volcanic activity and sun spot activity. I just do not believe that driving SUVs has anything to do with it. I don’t think there is one thing we can do about it at this point in time, or that there is anything we should want to do if we could.

  4. Marx

    The Green’s fleet is lost and they’re friends on the Endor moon will not survive.
    There is no escape my young apprentice.
    The Green Alliance will die

  5. Roland Sauve

    We need to get rid of George Sorros and the Tide foundation and other major money supporters to stop the run away train before they break our countries, go green are major money makers for these consortium, so we need every one on board to make this happen

  6. kuhnkat

    Fund real science?? No, get the gubmint out of subsidizing, granting, or funding science. They will ALWAYS be biased and wasteful.

  7. John Galt

    Canada’s energy regressive situation has been manufactured by outside influence NGOs including much indirect influence from several of George Soros’s Open Society foundations providing direction and funding thru Canadian environmental branches of US centered environmental agencies. Hiding in the green shadows is a very strong US protectionist agenda IMHO.

  8. It is amazingly simple to show that the fundamental assumption of the “man-caused global warmers” is false: See “CO2 Is Innocent” at https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com and clip-copy the six page paper, print it and have it authenticated by any Chemistry teacher or person that has had college level Chemistry to confirm the equations and stoichiometry are correct. Do the demo-experiment and you will see that increases of CO2 on the order feared by the alarmists have no effect and if we take the concentration up to 10,000 ppm the temperature falls as we are driving out water vapor per Le Chatelier’s Principle for gases, a concept removed from Chemistry and Physics textbooks in the 90’s. Why? Ask the publishers. This is the greatest science fraud since the alchemists were telling Medieval kings they could turn lead to gold with the yolk of the eggs of Griffins, a mythical bird not unlike the myth of “greenhouse gases.”

    • Immortal600

      I wonder why that clown, David Appell, who holds a PHD in Chemistry, can’t understand that. I think his PHD came from the back of a matchback.

    • I come to this as an APL programmer for whom to understand something quantitative is to implement it and play in its parameter space . So I figured out and implemented the generalization to arbitrary spectra of the computation which produces the endlessly parroted 33K “GHG” warming from an extremely crudely calculated 255K “radiative balance” of the Earth .

      And I applied the computations to Venus . See http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html .

      These distinctly undergraduate level computations show the quantitative absurdity — by an order of magnitude — that Venus’s extreme Bottom of Atmosphere temperature , equivalent to 25 times the energy density the Sun delivers to its orbit , can be explained by a spectral filtering , ie : GreenHouse Gas , phenomenon .

      Only since that Heartland talk , did it get thru to me that it is gravitational energy which balances the increase in thermal energy as one descends in the atmosphere ( and beyond ) and balances the equations . But this other macroscopic force is assiduously left out of the GHG paradigm — by both sides .

      Having been diverted into this debacle by its basic offence to even my Eisenhower administration grade school nerd sense of physics , I never have been stuck in the paradigm . I just wanted a computable understanding . And while no quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration of the AlGoreWarming GHG “hypothesis” has ever been presented in these now decades , the gravitational equations are rather straight forward and classic .

      See http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics if interested in the problems of quantitatively modeling the planet at an APL level .

      • Sir: With all due respect: Your first sentence is utter gibberish and much of what you say in the remainder is in that class. Sorry, but I am not impressed.

        Adrian Vance

            • Yea , right . Check out Arthur Whitney’s http://Kx.com , the direct influence on my
              4th.CoSy . If it’s gibberish , it’s awfully effective and profitable gibberish .

              Yes , the global statist demonization of the carbon half of the equation of life is the most damaging anti-science fraud ever , but it’s a quantitative physical issue in which the chemistry plays only a supporting role .

              But your denigration of mathematics is embarrassing .

              • I am hardly “denigrating mathematics.” What I am objecting to is your grandiose language to impress readers rather than deal with the issue. Some gibberish is profitable, but that does not justify it. Both my parents were college professors and I was routinely dragged to faculty functions where many people like you were trying to impress everyone with their grandiose language. Well, big whup! No impressed here.

                • Then let’s get down to actual quantitative experimentally testable computations of radiative equilibrium temperature for arbitrary spectra .

                  Do you agree or disagree with the computation presented at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq which is the basis of my analysis showing the quantitative absurdity that Venus’s bottom-of-atmosphere temperature can be explained by a spectral phenomenon ? I go thru it in my Heartland presentation linked at http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html .

                  The computation is in a freely downloadable APL but is basically a ratio of dot products between object absorptivity=emissivity spectrum and source and sink power spectra so is definitely undergraduate level . I will help translate it to a more common language like Python but would prefer that discussion be moved to http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html .

                  Without this computation it is impossible to say anything analytical about a planet’s temperature — particularly to the 4th decimal place accuracy these observed variations are about .

                  • Immortal600

                    Bob, both you and Adrian are very knowledgeable opponents of the farce known as AGW. I thank you both for your efforts to expose this fraud masquerading as real science. Again, Thank You!!

                  • I have never seen anyone so arrogantly full of himself generating gibberish to fool people into being impressed with him!

                    In the first case Earth is not a black body. It is a system that is very large and very variable in terms of surfaces and granularities of those surfaces as well as reflectivity and nature where 71% is covered by water that absorbs 100% of any IR, heat wave, energy it gets.

                    Your last paragraph documents that you are a bullshitter which you confess with “…4th decimal place accuracy…” nonsense. No sale Mr. Armstrong. You flunk.

                    • It’s clear why you are in chemistry , not physics . You assure yourself that you will never quantitatively understand planetary temperature .

                      You show no understanding of the classical quantitative analytical method .
                      A couple more slides :
                      First , the total variation is about 0.3% , 3th decimal place . “Hottest Year Ever” claims are on the order of the 4th .
                      http://cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin800.jpg

                      Next , just some philosophy of science :
                      http://cosy.com/Science/QuantTrumpsQual.jpg

                    • Idiot: I have a minor in Physics, and was a Chem major. For an example of my expertise please go to WorldCat.org and input my name to the search box and you will see over 400 titles of films, filmstrips, audio and computer programs that I produced for all the leading educational publishers for over 40 years. That listing does not include my work for ten national magazines, that I was on the masthead of two and have published science materials in the UK and was there made a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain. So stick it up your butt.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • You are striking me as being as much of a troll as Appell .

                      You insult one of the greatest men in the history of programming language who generalized the notation for matrix algebra and made it something you can “play” with on a computer . That alone makes you look like a determined idiot .

                      And every thing I have stated is computable in notations evolved from his ideas . You have presented nothing testable .

                      And then you spout a lot of crap that we’re supposed to be impressed with . Well , maybe I would be if you didn’t show yourself to be such an arrogant close minded jerk here .

                    • I object to anyone who uses grandiose language designed to impress people with how damn smart he is. It was the critical difference in my films, papers, articles, audio programs, 20 books and on-air or on-screen TV and that made me the leading, most successful and wealthy writer producer in the history of educational materials for SVE, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Universal International Films, Doubleday Films, ROA Films, Paramount TV and on through a list of other publishers including The Smithsonian.

                      The “Physics” you have displayed here is BS that is at best hypothetical. The relationship that controls the heating of an atmosphere is the Le Chatelier Principle for gases which has been removed from all Physics textbooks after 1988 as it puts the lie to the basic mechanism for heating our atmosphere. Per Le Chatelier adding CO2 reduces water vapor which molecule-for-molecule is seven times the absorber of IR energy from sunlight and where CO2 is 2.44 times as heavy as H2O the factor becomes 17 on a weight for weight analysis. It is a perfectly simple mechanism that can be explained very easily, but your sort perfers to make it a mystery as you think that makes you more important, but while it may it is at the expensive of principle and the people.

                    • Your CV is consistent with your grandiose language to the point that it confirms intent to deceive in your CV, but you confess your ignorance leaving “curriculum” off “curriculum vitae”

                      “Mathematical Psychophysics?” What bullshit! That’s a degree” Northwestern has certainly gone down hill since my father got his masters there and I used to visit my friend and associate Dr. Jay Allen Hynek when I was in town doing business and attending marketing meetings at Britannica HQ in the Loop.

                      You also use typeface tricks to make it appear you “served as Chief of Staff to Martin Luther King!”

                      You are a total phony Bob Armstrong and just the kind of man I fought throughout my entire 40 years in educational publishing. Your sort nearly brought down the world economy with such as linear regression equations that are only right 60% of the time on real data and decline by a factor of 0.6 in every iteration using a previous product as a data point. This is the reason none of the climate models work and never will. There are limits to the validity of mathematics when used for prediction.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • Dr Hynek was my professor in the intro astronomy class I took at Northwestern . His presentation of the fundamental foundation of special relativity , the lack of independent measures of distance and time , only their ratio , remains the most lucid I have ever seen — including even Huseyin Yilmaz’s Introduction to the theory of relativity and the principles of modern physics which I finally recently read .

                      Frankly how you can read :
                      Customers of 1985 APL+PC.CoSy included :

                      Wyatt Tee Walker , founder of Freedom National Bank , served as
                      Chief of Staff to Martin Luther King and to Jessie Jackson.

                      and think that I am talking about myself rather Wyatt Walker is beyond me .

                      And I’ll agree : “Mathematical Psychophysics?” is kind of pretentious but I was in the psychophysics group in Northwestern’s psychology department and ended up spending all my time hanging with the math department and computer center .

                      Again , let’s get back to basics — which I express as : do you know how to calculate the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp ?
                      Hint : http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq .

                    • Dr. Hynek, sought me out after he read my book, “UFO’s: The Eye and the Camera” when I was the West Coast Editor of Popular Photography which I developed in response to the fact the government’s NICAP organization was discounting all UFO sightings where what people saw differed in any way with what cameras photographed.

                      My hypothesis was that vision and photography were two different systems and I developed a “Two Channel Information Theory For the Analysis of Events Simultaneously Observed and Photographed” for which the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain made me a “Fellow,” the only American so awarded.

                      It was clear to me Dr. Hynek was most interested in the multi-dimensional, time-travel origin hypotheses instead of inter-planetary sources given the distances involved, light speed limit, etc., but he would never come out and say it which irritated me a bit as he would allude to the concept every time we were about to say goodbye. It drove nuts as he would even do it on phone calls!

                      I never saw him present anything, but was on a TV show with him in Kansas City and he was an excellent presenter there. That was for the MUFON conference I think in 1974, or thereabouts.

                      Whether or not you used the old ad design trick of directing readers with bold face type intentionally or not, your CV is a textbook example of “directing attention” in advertising and editorial work. Given all your other BS, I think you did it intentionally as you are clearly a scoundrel.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • The only “highlighting” on Dr Walker’s reference is a link to his biography .

                      I think anyone still following us has plenty of data to decide which of us is off his meds .

                    • I agree and those who have suffered boorish bombastics that write such as you will know you are trying to impress your readers with how damn smart you are and your CV reeks of that kind of presentation with the mention of men of accomplishment, your highlights segments to let the quick scanning reader, as are most Personnel Directors into thinking you are accomplished when you are not.

                      You should know that in all likelihood the math you would use to estimate the temperature of a cue ball under a heat lamp is bound to be wrong as there are far more variables than your Calculous includes. If you want to see how good your mathematical models work read the history of Long Term Capital Management and recently that every one of the computer models predicting the horrors we would experience if we didn’t kill all the coal miners and oil drillers were wrong and each cost several million Dollars. I could write one that would work that well in a week and go to Ibetha for a year and when it failed just give the Federal officials a blank look and ramble some gibberish of the kind you purvey. I pity your wife as not only does she put up with you, but she knows.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • in all likelihood the math you would use to estimate the temperature of a cue ball under a heat lamp is bound to be wrong as there are far more variables than your Calculous includes.

                      An experiment would settle it — and clarify a great deal of the endlessly stagnate nonscience . That’s why I am ever promulgating a Ritchie Prize for best “YouTube” demo of this non-optional physics .

                    • I have been around for a long time, seen and done many experiments of that kind and none were ever close. It is not surprising all the computer program climate models were wrong and that they were sold, by jerks like you, only proves what I have long been saying.

                    • It appears we both have .

                      I present 1 equation , the straight forward generalization of the computation which produces the uselessly crude 255K meme .

                      You so far as I can tell presents nothing testable – just some notion that Le Chatelier’s principle explains everything .

                      But I don’t see anything computable and therefore nothing testable and therefore Zero chance of ever resolving anything .

                      If I’m wrong , please show us your testable quantitative equations .

                    • Go to https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com Clip-copy print and read “CO2 Is Innocent” and you will have a paper that is designed to teach the subject and not prove how much smarter I am than the reader, which is your style to which I object. Your attitude is one that is all-too present in our classrooms and has probably destroyed science education as it has become fashionable thanks, in part, to people like the late Carl Sagan.

                      People like you are selling the idea that computer models and equations that claim to express more than three dimensions by changing an exponent, adding another equation to a long string of derivatives, etc. while disasters like Long Term Capital Management have shown it is all bullshit. Same story recently for NASA and NOAA. All of their computer simulations, dripping with derivatives, tensors, etc. but are nonsense and failed dismally.

                    • The article you cite seems to go all over the place and I see no testable proof of anything .

                      Beyond the orbital geometry , and Stefan-Boltzmann conversion back and forth between between power ( energy density and temperature ) I add one experimentally testable equation which accounts for the coupling between object spectrum and source and sink spectra .

                      And that is sufficient to prove QUANTITATIVELY the absurdity of Hansen’s — or anybody else’s — claim that Venus’s surface temperature , 2.25 times that of a gray ball in its orbit , 25 times the energy density the Sun supplies to its orbit , is due to some spectral phenomenon is quantitatively absurd .

                      Is that a “model” or just non-optional classical physics ?

                      Is that language too highfalutin for you ?

                      You seem to talk a lot the phase changes of H2O . That surely is a factor in Earth’s spectrum and sensible versus latent energy balance . But it is irrelevant in the case of Venus . So , did I miss some explanation you have relevant to Venus ? I’ll admit that I just quickly browsed the article , but I saw nothing computable or testable .

                      I agree with your assessment of all the model bullshit with Navier-Stokes computational clouds disconnected from the most essential non-optional classical physics .

                      The ability to express those computations in APL , or K is a very fundamental motivation in CoSy — which is distilled from those notations . Thus I can assert with confidence that I can map that single equation over any arbitrary spectral map of the planet and atmosphere ,

                      But but that’s pointless until the most basic quantitative “laws” are understood . And you reject even that single testable equation — first , echoing David Appell that “the Earth is not a colored ball” and then that even the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp is too complicated to compute .

                      Flash : engineers do such computations and far more complex ones all the time .

                      And LTCM showed nothing but that a bunch of too cocky Nobel economists applied their expected normals way outside their domain of expertise .

                      I’ve seen paradigms happily pumping out papers off in computational clouds content with never grounding them in the essential math .

                      ( Back in grad school in visual psychophysics they were talking about Fourier detectors in the brain ; I learned enough math , specifically the math of orthogonal decompositions like the Fourier and similarity classes of matrices , and used APL to analyse a classic experiment to show it was all meaningless bullshit . So I was kicked out w/o my PhD . )

                      It’s the total absence of a testable quantitative classical foundation in this uniquely retarded stagnate branch of applied physics that sucked me into this astoundingly mathematically amateurish debacle .

                      But you reject its quantitative understanding all together .

                    • Sir: You are a colossal example of what I have long feared would be the product of what I saw happening as the son of two college professors deep in academia after having come out of show-biz which we all thought was insane, but found an even greater reservoir of nuttiness behind ivy covered walls.

                      Your second and third paragraphs above are insane gibberish! You must be on meth-amphedymine or Heroine as you are too “antsy” to read a six page paper and keep the context. Your ravings have nothing to do with the issue and wobble all over Venus, dip into quantum mechanics, but not coherently; you are a mess!

                      The last half of my six page paper very carefully outlines the chemistry and physics of an atmosphere demonstrator where we increase CO2 quantitatively so that you can see that much of what is said about it is not true and then I explain the atmospheric physics of how it happens. It is perfectly done and has been lauded by Dr. James Rust Ph.D. Physics of Georgia Tech who has studied the atmosphere extensively.

                      I sincerely suggest that you seek medical-psychiatric treatment as you have a serious problem I would rather not deal with so I will end it here.

                      Sincerely, Adrian Vance

                    • A central reason I solved minimal paths around n-cubes , and in the process : simplices , back in 1979 was to demonstrate the what APL aided thought could accomplish . It’s always surprised me that people could look at my logo and “dis” me as you have done from the beginning of your rants .

                      I commented that your work may explain some details unique to Earth because it is in the narrow zone where water exists in all 3 phases . But , to me that’s detail . And says nothing about the basic temperature physics , and says nothing about the case of Venus — which if you cannot explain then you can explain nothing .

                      You have been a fountain of calumnies and close minded to even the simplest computations . It’s Monday . One last question and good bye :

                      How many dimensions is my cube logo ?

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’ve looked into Bob Armstrong’s “science” about a colored ball more closely than anyone else, I’m sure, on the planet, even deciphering his ancient and ridiculous method of writing equations and his horrible punctuation.

                      It is all junk – and this is very easy to see. Armstrong can’t even get the units right in his equations. He misunderstands and misapplies basic physical principles like Kirchoff’s Law, and he applies blackbody equations to objects that he defines as not being blackbodies.

                      As just one bizarre example, on page 23 of his PowerPoint slides for his Heartland Institute talk, he divides A by E and gets a unitless number.

                      http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

                      Unfortunately, higher up on that page he defines A and E and clearly shows that they have different units.

                      And, no, his derived numbers aren’t right either, such as for albedos and outgoing longwave spectrums.

                      Armstrong is afraid to even try to address any of these problems, or answer a single question. Hasn’t in two years. That’s not how a scientist reacts.

                      His PPT slides:
                      http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
                      via
                      http://climateconferences.heartland

                    • Immortal600

                      Just like a monkey picked the correct Super Bowl winner. BFD. No wonder you’ve taken up trolling here. You got destroyed by Dr. Berry and also over on Dr. Spencer’s blog. You are a clown. Where did you get that PHD, off the back of a matchbook?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You utterly failed to focus on the science here.

                      I suspect that’s what you usually do. Just another mouth with no science behind it.

                    • Immortal600

                      The science you supposedly have is a joke. You’ve been roasted many times on the topic. That is why you are here.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The science I’m presenting is that found by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, as assessed via IPCC reports.

                      I don’t believe for a nanosecond that you know 1% of what they do.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “The science I’m presenting is that found by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, as assessed via IPCC reports.”
                      In other words, pseudoscience based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which project too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

                      Got it.

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      An image out of Arthur C. Clarke’s “A Meeting with Medusa” pops into my head. Two enormous gasbags drifting high in the Jovian atmosphere, squirting acid at each other.

    • 9.8m/ss

      Do-it-yourself “scientists” dissenting from the mainstream are almost always wrong. “CO2 Is Innocent” is spectacularly, hilariously wrong. Recommended for a laugh to anybody who passed his physical chemistry elective.

      • If that were true then why did Dr. James Rust of the Georgia Institute of Technology endorse it? And, why have none of the 2.325 physical scientists and engineers in the LinkedIn database, of which I am a credentialed member, object or point to a flaw?

        Please cite some error in the reactions in the piece or the stoichiometry? I again offer it freely to anyone wanting to clip-copy it at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com Title: “CO2 Is Innocent.” And I suggest you put up or apologize as Physical Chemistry has nothing to do with this. It is all very simple, basic Chemistry and Physics if you can include the Le Chatelier Principle as applied to gases.

  9. TNCBG

    Lots of interesting comments on both sides of the argument. Scientific debate among learned people is essential to our understanding of the planet and it’s eccentricities. Unfortunately, politics and money never miss an opportunity to corrupt science and its participants. The politics of global warming cannot be denied, nor can the wealth redistributive “solutions” conjured up at climate change boondoggles. What sensible person could actually believe that sending billions of dollars to third world dictatorships will accomplish anything other than further enriching the thoroughly corrupt. If human caused CO2 will result in significant warming in the future, we better start preparing to exist on a warmer planet. We cannot and will not stop the climate from changing. Technology will eventually transition us away from fossil fuels, but there are still millions of people on this planet heating their huts with wood and animal dung. To think that billions of earth’s inhabitants living in sovereign nations under numerous forms of government are going to march lockstep in an effort to control the planet’s climate is as stupid as it sounds.

    • reagangs

      Mark Twain once mused something to the effect: Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding a multitude of them and applying the wrong remedy.

  10. reagangs

    This is what I have been promoting for the last decade. Al Gore and his “magic” hockey stick graph made most of us laugh. Carbon credits are history. Maybe, after actual “green” energy cost can eventually match conventional energy sources, with out subsidies, then we can start being serious. Question: How much do the massive wind turbines cost to manufacture, transport, assemble, erect and maintain without subsidies ??? Answer: Tens of $millions, at least. The ROI would never be realized. Solar, the same. Thanks but I will drive my old 2007 gasoline guzzling clunker until the wheels fall of or it goes dead on the road. Then I plan on buying a max sized Ford or Chevy with a V8, then go on a vacation to the far North and NW USA. Regards, retired engineer and REAL scientist, astronomer and Patriotic American, Fort Worth, TX

    • pkwz

      But according to ALgore in 2006, we only had TEN YEARS to dramatically reduce green house gas emissions before the earth would pass the point of NO RETURN and we’d all be doomed!

      Okay, it’s now the end of 2017. I’ve been waiting for doomsday for a year. Just the like other predicted doomsdays, overpopulation, mass extinction, resource depletion, mass starvation and global cooling, it seems that ALGore’s prediction hasn’t happened.
      See this article for a more complete description:
      http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

    • Grumnut1

      How about th other 36 hockey sticks.
      Done without tree ring data.
      By about a thousand scientists, all trying to prove each team wrong.

  11. pkwz

    Let’s face it, arguing with Global Warming crusaders about AGW is like arguing about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Their basic premise doesn’t exist and any further discussion with them just produces plant food (i.e., CO2).

    • Grumnut1

      Then why is the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling?
      Why aren’t they BOTH warming, if the world is heating up?
      Why are nights warming faster than the days?
      Is CO2 magical and it only works at night?
      What makes CO2 special in that way?
      Why can we prove all of this is due to our use of fossil fuels, very easily?
      if it’s the sun then why haven’t we been cooling for the last 58 years

  12. jameshrust

    Atlanta is on the verge of adopting Atlanta’s 100% Clean Energy Plan which is to have Atlanta government 100 % clean energy by 2025 and the entire city by 2035. Clean energy eliminates nuclear power and natural gas and will be probably only solar. This will cause higher property taxes and doubling home energy bills in a city that has third-world roads, rampant crime everywhere, and a school system that is K-prison. This is forced poverty by those in the renewable energy industrial complex who are led by the Sierra Club locally.

    • pkwz

      Great News! It’s great that Atlanta is going to be the guinea pig for this 100% Clean Energy madness. I can’t wait for the results. It’s like that Tesla battery down in Australia–can’t wait for it to “work”.

      The only way to prove the stupidity of “Clean Energy” is to let the dice roll and everyone can observe.

  13. Biologyteacher100

    Science is not decided by voters. The climate evidence gets stronger year by year, with evidence from warming temperatures, ecological responses and scientific studies.

    • socalpa

      The climate evidence that the original alarmist claims of Risk from elevated CO2 was grossly exaggerated to false is what is getting stronger year by year.
      .
      The polar icecaps show no impact to elevated CO2. in fact ,Antarctica 90% of global ice has been increasing in both sea ice extent ,and continental ice mass for decades ,reducing sea level rise .
      .
      The Arctic decline in sea ice extent ended in 2005 ,and AMOC ocean phase found to be the primary driver of observed retreat 1980-2005 .not CO2 . The claims of an ice free Arctic summer by 2013/14/15/16/17 utterly refuted .Arctic projections call for increase next decade(s).
      .
      Ecological responses ? Beneficial ,terrestrial and marine . Crop yields rising 1-3% per decade to recent records ,marine phytoplankton (base of the food chain) increasing in all ocean 50 -80 in situ observations .
      .
      Just a few , links on polite request .

    • socalpa

      Note;
      .
      Science is not decided by consensus ,either . And science budgets are decided by voters .
      .
      NPR reports a drastic decline in studies containing “Climate Change” .
      .
      Need further evidence climate science driven by budgets ?
      .
      I don’t .

  14. Cappo33

    People are sick of the virtue signaling. They treat environmentalism as if it were a cult and shove it down your throat more than any other modern religion on earth.

  15. david russell

    Climate science by now has shown itself to be pseudo-science — disconnected with empirical reality. It holds appeal for globalists, anti-progress types, neo-pastoralists, disillusioned communists/socialists, and a vast field of nutters. Time to get back to reality.

    • TreeParty

      Do you claim that melting ice masses around the globe are not “empirical reality”? How about demonstrably rising sea levels, longer growing seasons, ocean acidification? Not “empirical reality”?! Climate science holds appeal for citizens who care about the environment and about how human activities are changing it. Apparently, that does not include you..

      • david russell

        Glaciers have been melting since we emerged from the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. 90% of the world’s surface ice is in Antarctica and 85% of that is in East Antarctice which is getting colder and icier.

        Sea levels as measured by the 375 tidal gauges in NOAAs own long term tidal gauge data base as of 2016 are rising a 1.56mm per year (less than 6″ per century). The average for the entire 20th century was 1.7mm per year (less than 1.56). Like with the world’s surface ice (above) there is no “there” there.

        Longer growing seasons is a good thing. The world is literally greener today than any time in the last 2 centuries.

        That obliterates all your points.

        • TreeParty

          Here is what NOAA actually says about sea levels:
          https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
          “Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year (over 3 mm..)”
          There certainly is a “there” there…
          Glaciers have NOT been uniformly melting since the LIA:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
          “Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas.”
          Wow, water supplies affected: that ain’t “the weather getting better everywhere”…
          But I REALLY want to drill down on your claim that “longer growing seasons is a good thing. The world is literally greener today than any time in the last 2 centuries.”
          The assertion that “longer growing seasons is a good thing” is a facile and uninformed notion. For a boreal or temperate forest ecosystem that depends on an interval of below freezing temperatures to kill off pathogens, the longer frost free interval is certainly NOT “a good thing”.
          While the observation that “the world is literally greener today than at any time in the last 2 centuries” is a kind of tacit admission of the fact of global warming, it is almost certainly not true. While studies have shown a recent reversal of the long term loss of terrestrial biomass, it follows centuries of deforestation that had been accelerating until fairly recently.
          “Of course, deniers gonna deny. Using these studies to say that climate change is good is like getting in a massive car accident and being happy you don’t have to vacuum out the car anymore.
          But hey, if you’re willing to ignore rising sea levels, more extreme weather, melting polar ice, deoxygenation of the oceans, droughts, floods, acidification of the oceans and coral bleaching, more heatwaves, and the displacement of potentially hundreds of millions of people, then y’know, a little more green in your life is just great!
          Enjoy it while it lasts.”
          So, no: that “obliterates” NO points….
          AGW is happening, and it will bring much more misery as time goes on.

            • TreeParty

              Actually, David Russell is lying or inept, because he fails to explain that “the mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion.” – NOAA
              https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
              Meanwhile, “the global sea level trend has been recorded by satellite altimeters since 1992 and the latest calculation of the trend can be obtained from NOAA’s Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, along with maps of the regional variation in the trend. The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group compares global sea level rates calculated by different research organizations and provides detailed explanations about the issues involved.”
              http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
              and
              https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php

              • david russell

                Tidal gauges are therefore more believable as well as more relevant. They aren’t over 1300 km away. They’ve got a much longer record. And they measure the sea levels where human lives and property are at risk….at the coasts.

                • TreeParty

                  If you look at the maps, you see that the areas that show the most sea level RISE (as measured by tidal gauges!) are the coastal zones where most of the people live. The areas that show less rise or (even sea level drop) are the coastal zones where fewer people live. Nice try, though…

                  • david russell

                    So humans have stupidly chosen to live in subsidence zones or to actually create them (by, e.g. draining aquifers beneath urban centers or building on landfills/ swamps or other unstable geology).

                    None of this a matter of AGW. Nor is choosing to build on flood plains, along known hurricane/tornado tracks, etc.. But don’t blame AGW for any of this.

                    • TreeParty

                      For thousands of years, humans have “stupidly” chosen to live near oceans for several very good reasons. Then we found coal and oil, and have proceeded to flare hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just a few centuries. All that carbon dioxide that resulted from that combustion has been accumulating in the atmosphere (and now in the oceans..), warming the planet very suddenly and melting ice all over the planet. So for sure, the sea level is rising, threatening all of human civilization to a degree, but certainly the greatest risk to those established communities of “stupid” people who have chosen to live near the ocean.
                      Wow, sociopath much?!

                    • david russell

                      Your above is somewhat silly. Sea levels as measured by tidal gauges are rising at 6″ per 100 years. Bacteria can out run that. AGW is not causing any sea level rise crises. The current rate isn’t any different than the 1.7 mm per year average rise for the entire 20th century.

                      I’m not worried about sea rise therefore. The increase in CO2 ppms seems to be having no impact on the rate of sea rise, which has been pretty mild since the Civil War.

                      If you live in a subsidence zone like Norfolk, Va. you perhaps should be worried. It was built on a swamp and is sinking (and has been for a long, long time). But there’s no rush.

                    • TreeParty

                      For thousands of years, humans have “stupidly” chosen to live near oceans for several very good reasons.
                      FACT
                      Then we found coal and oil, and have proceeded to flare hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just a few centuries.
                      FACT
                      All that carbon dioxide that resulted from that combustion has been accumulating in the atmosphere (and now in the oceans..), warming the planet very suddenly and melting ice all over the planet.
                      FACT
                      So for sure, the sea level is rising,
                      FACT
                      threatening all of human civilization to a degree, but certainly the greatest risk to those established communities of “stupid” people who have chosen to live near the ocean.
                      FACT
                      “…contained no facts.” Wow…

                    • david russell

                      Fact #1 above….. just a story
                      Fact #2 ….. more of a factoid, irrelevant.
                      Fact #3 …. incorrect (and irrelevant) – CO2 sinks also include the soils, and the biosphere.
                      Fact #4….. For sure sea levels are rising, about 6-8″ per century and have been for 150 years. I’ll give you this as a fact, but it’s one that supported the “AGW is not a problem” side
                      Fact #5 ….. just BS. Sea rise is not threatening currently and as it’s happening slower than bacteria can run, if it becomes a problem we can adjust.

                    • TreeParty

                      And this from a guy who seems to think that the “answer” to the tragedy of the commons is to “privatize the commons.” Man, have you drunk the koolaid…

                    • TreeParty

                      Wow, you are one naïve “master”. Only a child believes that people always do the right thing. Only a child believes that every economic decision is rational. Only a child believes that every person acting in their own self-interest somehow magically optimizes the common interest. You cannot privatize the atmosphere, sonny.

                    • david russell

                      Only an idiot would believe you’d pay for an asset and not do whatever you could to maximize the return therefrom. When “Everyone” owns something, if fact NO ONE owns it. Why ownership of the fruit is simply a matter of picking it, then over picking will be the result and NO ONE will have ANY incentive to plant more trees (why, if anyone can pick the fruit), or fertilize or to protect from predators. Certainly not the government. The Soviet Union owned all the resources and they laid waste to the entire country.

                      And of course you cannot privatize the air (unfortunately). But in the US the air quality has never been better in my lifetime, so there’s no problem here.

                    • david russell

                      The top 6 air pollutants in the Clean Air Act have been reduced by a collectIive 70%. This despite almost 2x more miles drI’ve and 2x more electricity produced.

                      That’s the govt mandate part. The US Carbon footprint is down to early 1990 levels almost exclusively due the fossil fuel industry.

                      So I give you half credit.

                    • TreeParty

                      The libertarian philosophy holds “property rights” (private ownership) to be foundational. You appear to share that belief. The linked blog has a good discussion of the flaws in that reasoning, why the tragedy of the commons is not reliably amenable to amelioration by private ownership. Which notion is central to how to think about, and respond to, AGW, since AGW is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons.
                      I didn’t mean to start a separate discussion; the link is just my gift to you, to help enlarge your understanding of the world.
                      And not to put too fine a point on it, NO: the greens are NOT losing the international climate fight. Even in the U.S., the tide of public opinion seems to be turning:
                      http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
                      You can only deny the facts for so long…

                    • david russell

                      In 1950 you live in a $500 shack on an island and a cat 5 hurricane washes it away.

                      You rebuild a $100,000 house. Next year a cat 4 hurricane destroys it. You give up and sell out to a billionaire who builds a $10mm mansion. Then next year a cat 3 hurricane knocks it down.

                      Damage year by year : $500 $100,000 $10,000, 000
                      Hurricanes by year Cat 5 Cat 4 Cat 3

                      Think about it.

                    • TreeParty

                      Another category error. Do you not understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction?! If you just make something up, you may regard it as instructive in some way. But if it is just made up, and has no organic connection to the real world, then it is not importantly instructive..
                      The allegory that you invented is apropos of very little. There is a GREAT DEAL OF MISERY in Houston, Texas these days, not to mention Puerto Rico. and large swaths of Florida. If you show up there glibly laughing about how the people who “chose to live there” are stupid because of the risks they exposed themselves to, expect to get a chilly (pun intended) reception. Do they think of themselves as victims of global warming? Take a survey, and get back to us.

                    • david russell

                      “Fiction” is your category mistake. When the teacher says, “I have 3 apples and give one to my brother, and then eat one. How many apples do I have left? ” That’s not fiction. That’s pedagogy (teaching). Any student that pipes up with “Hey I don’t see any apples” is going to get his knuckles rapped.

                      Oh, and that shows that I did not in fact make a category mistake.

                      Your post is worse…. it’s an appeal to emotion (the misery of Houston).

                      My example is spot on. It makes no reference to Houston or as you intuited anyone specifically at all. And “Yes” if you build your house at sea level on a known hurricane track you are being foolish and will suffer the consequences. On the other hand we live in a society where we not only encourage foolish behavior (the Federal govt’ actually provides flood insurance), but also one where we bail fools out of the consequences of their foolish behavior.

                    • TreeParty

                      I don’t think you understand “category error”. (You can look it up for a good explanation..) Your category error is to imagine that there is a mapping of narrative onto reality which is neither fiction nor non-fiction. (Say, you aren’t one of those people who believes in “alternative facts” are you?!)
                      The teacher in your example is employing fiction in her pedagogy if she does not actually “have 3 apples.” Fiction with an instructive purpose we might say, but still fiction. The kibitzer won’t get his knuckles rapped (more pedagogy?); we don’t allow that in public schools anymore. More likely the teacher will say, “Well, yes; I don’t actually HAVE 3 apples, but suppose I did” or something to that effect, thereby confessing to the fictional nature of the example.
                      Your own “pedagogy” about the houses and the hurricanes is both fictional AND sort of pointless as far as I can see; I must be missing the point. Perhaps you could do a better job of the “pedagogy”…

                      I do not disagree that we need to rethink the provision of “low cost” flood insurance by feds, but flood insurance is certainly NOT an irrational economic service. Private insurers sell flood insurance, too; and it is no fiction to say that private insurers are keenly aware of the growing risk exposure posed by global warming/rising seas.
                      (Even the federal government, in the guise of the Defense Department, famously and explicitly acknowledges the security threats posed by global warming)
                      Of course, if you are even hinting at the “rational solution” being a massive relocation of populations from flood-prone coastal areas, I give you Exhibit A in the disruptive and destructive effects of global warming!

                    • david russell

                      I am a native speaker of English and scored in the 99th percentile on my verbal SAT.

                      Private insurers WOULD NOT provide flood insurance. That is WHY the Feds stepped in. As a result, this encourage people to take risks they otherwise could not take. Without flood insurance for flood prone locales, insurers wouldn’t insure, bankers wouldn’t make mortgage loans, and cities wouldn’t provide zoning.

                      My example was pedagogical and spot on, your protestations to the contrary. This is all part of the AGW scam, when the reality is that we all want to live where it’s dangerous to do so and have everyone else bail us out when the inevitable happens.

                    • TreeParty

                      AGW is not a “scam”. Saying that “AGW is a scam” is like saying the automobiles are a scam.
                      GW (global warming) is demonstrable, observable, measureable, and real. By any measure that makes sense to apply, the planet is warming. Scientists who study the climate, who investigate the causes, extents, and effects of the observed warming, are practically unanimous that it is human activity that is the chief cause of the warming. Thus confirming the Anthropogenic part of the AGW.
                      So the reality of AGW is confirmed by virtually every scientific society around the world; by the vast preponderance of public policy makers around the world; by the Defense Department; by insurance companies; and, increasingly by the citizenry. The most ardent deniers of AGW are a clown car of barking fools like Delingpole, Monckton, Pruitt, Imhofe – a real rogue’s gallery. That’s some fine company you are keeping there, David.
                      To assert that “the weather is getting better in more and more places”, or “longer growing seasons are a good thing”, do not show AGW to be a scam. On the contrary, they show that your conviction that there is no warming is pretty weak.
                      And to assert that some people stand to make money from AGW is so say nothing remarkable. Isn’t that how the “free market” works? That every situation is an opportunity for someone to profit?
                      So we have pumped hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere in a few decades. The existing system of carbon sinks cannot keep up, and the atmospheric fraction of this greenhouse gas CO2 has increased by close to 50%; so much that the CO2 is now leaking into the oceans decreasing their alkalinity at a rate that is very large by historical standards. Yet more evidence of the dynamic that explains the observed planetary warming. How much more evidence to you need to shock you into recognition of the truth? What evidence would suffice for you to admit that AGW is NOT a scam?!

                    • david russell

                      AGW is indeed a scam. Of course the planet has warmed (slightly — about 1C in 2 centuries). Of course as 2 centuries ago was the Little Ice Age (and very cold) what else should we have expected? Moreover the current warm climate is much, much better than LIA.

                      The problem with AGW is that it’s based on pseudo-science — pseudo because non-empirical. Of the 137 years of scientifically measured temps, only about 25-30 of them (1975-late1990s) have been BOTH rapidly rising temps with rapidly rise CO2 levels. We had a .45C temp increase from 1910-1940 with basically zilch increase in CO2 (and then there was the 30 years of cooling from WWII to 1975 or so. Plus if you buy the paleo climate story, the CO2 rises after the temperature increases — 500-800 years later. Indeed that .45C warming 1910-1940 was 2/3 of the warming for the entire 20th century (.6C according to the IPCC). So once again temps rise, then CO2.

                      The whole notion of CO2 back-radiation is total horse manure. We are told that there’s 330W/M2 of back radiation, but of course the GHG’s that are ‘radiating back’ should radiate an equal amount “up”. It’s nowhere to be seen. The earth only emits 240W/M2 that makes it to outer space. Where’s the 330-240=90W/M2 missing radiation.

                      Net/net Climate science is pseudo-science as I have just shown (and there’s more that I left out).

                    • TreeParty

                      On the other hand, there’s the actual data:
                      https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm
                      or, if you prefer a starker comparison:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1967/to:2017/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1967/to:2017/scale:0.01/offset:-3.35
                      Perhaps you can show a more punishingly compelling correlation to the now-admitted global warming of some other forcing such as “adiabatic lapse rate” or “lots of things” over the last 50 years.
                      But I doubt it.
                      I “buy” the paleo-climate story, that explains the paleo-climate. Those were times when hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon were NOT being turned into a global warming gas in the space of mere decades. Therefore, that process DOES NOT APPLY to the current situation. We know where 405 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from; and even a second grader doesn’t believe that people are combusting all those fossil fuels because of some global warming that started 600 years ago! Come on, man!
                      The planet HAS warmed slightly, more like one degree C in one century. The problem, and the reason that AGW is NOT “a scam”, is that the planet has warmed that much in SO SHORT A TIME, AND IS CONTINUING TO WARM. The warming rate currently is 10 deg C per millennium, which is shocking! (And that’s if the rate doesn’t increase due to some positive feedbacks.) Believe it or not, humans are having major environmental effects on the planet; and the likelihood that those effects are detrimental to the rest of creation is pretty high. We have polluted the oceans with plastic trash, which is likely getting into our food chain. We have chased many species into extinction or imminent extinction, including apex predators.
                      “The shrinking of the Aral Sea has been called ‘one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters’.The region’s once-prosperous fishing industry has been essentially destroyed, bringing unemployment and economic hardship. The Aral Sea region is also heavily polluted, with consequential serious public health problems.”
                      My point here, to indulge in a little pedagogy;) is that just as it is important to be aware of oncoming traffic when you are crossing the street, it is important for humankind to be aware of environmental risks that we are creating so as to avoid widespread misery when and if possible. You should be THANKFUL that climate science has identified the reason for the observed, frighteningly rapid increase in planetary temperature that we are experiencing; at least we know how to address the global warming problem, which is to reduce our “carbon footprint” as expeditiously as possible.
                      Even Exxon “knows” that AGW is not a scam! Come on, man!

                    • david russell

                      No one takes SKS seriously any more. It’s run by the charlatan John Cook (charlatan because of his pseudo-scientific “97% of climate scientists believe…” paper where he outed himself as a fraud).

                      As for woods for trees, I’ve already stipulated that that planet has warmed. So what’s your point?

                      The correlations between CO2 and temperature for the 20th century is ‘poor-fair’ — about .44 r-squared. And anyway the temperature rises first, then the CO2. CO2 levels are a result of warming, not the cause.

                      When you say, “the reason it’s not a scam is the warming has happened so quickly” you realize that this is a non sequitur, right? Fast or slow is irrelevant. We are emerging from the Little Ice Age after all, so why wouldn’t it warm and do so relatively fast? Indeed it rose .45C from 1910 to 1940 with CO2 levels barely budging.

                      As for the paleo-climate, that’s the best proof of all that the CO2 increase happens AFTER the rise in temperature. I don’t use this argument much because I don’t have faith in measuring temperatures with any credibility that far back. But if you do, then you should be compelled that CO2 levels are an artifact of warming, not the cause.

                      And 10C per millennium is just silly. Indeed if you want to use 1000 year ranges, we’ve had NO GLOBAL WARMING at all because the Medieval Warm Period (more like 800 years ago) was as warm or warmer than today and the Roman Warm period about 1800 years ago warmer still. Furthermore, the measured warming since say 1880 is not precise enough and furthermore skewed by being an abnormally cold starting point (end of LIA) and an abnormal end point (last year’s El Nino).

                      CO2 CANNOT be the cause of the 1C warming we’ve experienced from a physics perspective. I’ve shown this multiple times. The sun delivers 164W/M2 to Earth’s surface, all but 59W/M2 heats the air by conduction (nothing to do with AGW) and evaporates water (which actually cools the surface). This 59W/M2 is radiated off the planet and as only 4% of this IR is in the 15 micron wavelength that is CO2’s “AGW range”, that’s only 2.4W/M2 that CO2 can “amplify.” But since 94% of this 2.4W/M2 is thermalized, only 3% gets ‘radiated back to the surface’ (the other 3% ‘going up’). 3% of 2.4W/M2 = .072W/M2. It’s easy to say that the entire effect of CO2 absorbing and re-radiating 15 micron IR back to the surface is close to zilch — even if it happens multiple times up the troposphere (and remember, after the first time, the back radiation has to return through lower layers where it AGAIN gets the 97% haircut for each lower layers).

                      Human induced AGW via CO2 emissions is a total fraud.

                    • TreeParty

                      So much wrong I hardly know where to start…
                      “Fast or slow is irrelevant”. What a profoundly ignorant thing to say. If the average global temperature went up just one degree C over a period of a thousand years, we could scarcely measure that, and most ecosystems would have little problem adapting. The current actual warming is one deg. C per century which is THE SAME RATE as 10 deg. C per millennium. That’s pretty fast as these things are measured, and certainly reason for alarm. If the temperature went up 1 deg. per decade, after 10 decades and 10 degrees C of temperature rise, that frog would just jump right out of that pot!! All of which is just pedagogic for: the rate of warming is EXACTLY what is relevant. How could you miss such an elementary point?!?! The problem isn’t the one deg. C; it’s how fast the one deg. C happens. Wow! Think about it!

                      “We know where 405 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from; and even a second grader doesn’t believe that people are combusting all those fossil fuels because of some global warming that started 600 years ago!” Are you seriously suggesting that atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by 45% in the last century because of some pre-existing global warming?!?! ‘Cause that is just fatal stupidity. Yet you cling to some “explanation” that is irrelevant by hundreds of thousands of years. Wow! The fact that sometime in the deep past, when there were not thousands of smoking factories and millions of cars churning out exhaust at rush hour, CO2 was a lagging forcing of further warming DOES NOT EXPLAIN the current situation. Jeez; when you get to second grade, you will understand!

                      “No one takes SKS seriously any more.” This is another hallucination that is 180 degrees from the truth.
                      “Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as “the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world”, and The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.
                      Cook is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his Christian beliefs. He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific findings on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian.” – from Wikipedia

                      Here’s a challenge for you David: try writing something that is actually factually true. From what I’ve seen, you are incapable of it..

                    • david russell

                      The speed of warming is still irrelevant to the fact that it can’t be caused by CO2 levels — which it can’t. That obliterates your first paragraph above.

                      Your second paragraph is merely a testimonial to SKS. John Cook is still a scientific charlatan for the reason given. A marine biologist and a newspaper given SKS a thumbs up is hardly compelling. That obliterates everything else down you ‘your challenge.’

                      What’s factually true that I wrote in the post you are responding to above is what you neglected to comment on……namely that CO2 CANNOT explain the rise of 1C in temperature due to there being 4 molecules per 10,000 today vs 3 molecules per 10,000 200 years ago. The physics just isn’t there. Claims to the contrary are in violation of physics and therefore bogus.

                    • TreeParty

                      See what I mean? You probably couldn’t write something that is actually true if your life depended on it!
                      My actual SECOND paragraph above is the one that you neglected to comment on: that your belief that it is global warming that explains why humans are emitting gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere is recognizable as laughably stupid by even second graders.
                      The THIRD paragraph is a fully sufficient refutation of your false notion that “no one takes SKS seriously any more.” Of course MANY PEOPLE do (take SKS seriously); what is the point of making assertions that are demonstrably false, other than to continue to embarrass yourself?!
                      As regards my FIRST paragraph: obviously your poor comprehension level explains why you apparently cannot make sense of the argument that it is precisely the rate of change of global temperature that is relevant to the degree of risk we face. Perhaps you can find someone in your family or small circle of friends who can explain it to you..I thought my “orders of magnitude” pedagogy would get the point across, but alas; I am dealing with a bigger block of basalt than I had thought…
                      As regards YOUR third paragraph, let me see if I can correctly infer your meaning: a 45% increase in a known greenhouse gas cannot explain a greenhouse effect on planetary temperature. Do I have that right? No wonder people are so eager to challenge your steaming piles of sophistry!

                    • david russell

                      Humans emit about 3% of what nature emits. Perhaps you didn’t know that (probably, because you don’t know very much). Carbon moved in and out of the various short term carbon sinks (soils, biosphere, oceans) all the time.

                      Your first paragraph merely assumes that which is at issue, namely that CO2 causes [material] warming. It does not as I have proven.

                      There is no dispute that humans are emitted a lot of CO2 into the air. They’ve emitted fully 50% more CO2 since the mid-1990’s as in all history beforehand — with de minimus temperature effect (an inconvenient truth). It doesn’t matter because CO2 is just a bit player.

                      And anyway, CO2’s ability to cause radiative forcing is IMMEDIATE.

                      You may find something compelling about the speed of warming, but there’s no scientific reason to. Moreover, you give no reason to be surprised or concerned other than your own heavy breathing.

                      A 45% increase in the size of your left thumb nail will not have a material impact on the scales when you go to weigh yourself. On the other hand if you compress atoms of air floating around in deep space to 14 lbs per square inch, they will heat up.

                      I realize you are a doofus and a know-nothing. I am too, but not on this subject. I don’t know how to fly a jet, or build a bridge. I leave that to the experts. But on AGW I know what I’m talking about. Climate science is pseud-science. Rather like homeopathic medicine, or the phlogiston theory of heat, or eugenics, or a long list of fads that have fallen into the dustbin of history. Eventually the truth will prevail.

                    • TreeParty

                      Finally, an actual fact from the man! “Humans emit about 3% of what nature emits.” Hallelujah! But wait: what he OMITS is that that is exactly the 3% of the total CO2 sources that nature cannot sink out, and that is why CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution took off. Now: why would Mr. Self-Proclaimed Climate Expert leave out that critical fact?!?! Because it disproves his ridiculous assertions?! Probably..
                      CO2 DOES cause material warming. This is a well-known and (almost!) universally accepted FACT that was discovered centuries ago. This FACT is the reason that CO2 is grouped by actual scientists in with other GREENHOUSE GASES. But of course, now that you have “proven” otherwise, I will expect to see you accepting the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in a year or two..
                      “If you compress atoms of air floating around in deep space to 14 lbs per square inch, they will heat up.” Man; what are you SMOKING?!
                      For starters, statement is fully and completely irrelevant to “that which is at issue” here, which is the project by science to understand and explain GLOBAL WARMING. 14 lbs per square inch does not explain global warming. Nobody, not even the barking fools, believes that 14 lbs. per square inch explains global warming. Moreover, anyone who uses the phrase “atoms of air” reveals himself to be unconversant with climate science. Nice try. Not.

                    • david russell

                      Your first paragraph is once again irrelevant for the same reason as before — as more CO2 in the air cannot explain the past 200 years’ 1C of warming, CO2 levels are just not relevant.

                      And CO2 doesn’t remain in the air. It cycles through the other carbon sinks. In about 6-8 years none of the CO2 molecules currently in the air will remain. Other CO2 molecules will replace them from the ocean, soils, etc., but the original ones will be ‘somewhere else.’

                      What “EVERYONE” knew for centuries was that CO2 absorbed 15 micron IR [mostly]. What few knew and everyone ignored was that virtually all of this absorbed IR was thermalized — converted to heat [vibrations via collisions] to nearby molecules…with little/none radiated back to the surface. This is “energy redistribution” and NOT ‘energy amplification’.

                    • david russell

                      Just a postscript. The AGW scam has the implication that AGW is a bad thing. Otherwise, so what if there’s AGW, right. Hence the relevance of my “…the weathers never been better.”

                      Second, I’m not Delingpole, etc and moreover your calling them names is just puerile.

                      Finally, despite CO2 being a GHG and humans contributing to the ppms of it in the air, it’s a very weak GHG and can contribute on a handful of 10ths of a degree warming per ppm doubling.
                      I’ve shown this several times in recent posts which you can peruse in my DISQUS log (which is open to all).

                    • TreeParty

                      Thanks, anyway. I think I’ll stick with the informed opinions of actual climate scientists instead of those of the dilly taunts.
                      http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-climate-sensitivity
                      And just a postscript:
                      I didn’t say you were Delingpole. But if you prefer to believe a Delingpole or a Fake-Lord Monckton to believing Kevin Trenberth, you are just one gullible sucker, and I feel very sorry for you!

                    • david russell

                      If you want an informed opinion, you should listen to me. If you want to believe in what is demonstrably pseudo-science, there’s no hope for you intellectually. You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid from which there seems no cure.

                      You just go ahead and believe what you are told. That’s what children are supposed to do. But stay out of my way. Annoy someone else.

                    • david russell

                      Donald Trump will go down in history as a great President if all he ever accomplishes is getting the US out of the Paris Accords, saving us our share ($20T??) of up to $100T to be spent by 2100 in a feckless attempt to control the weather.

                      And of course that’s not all he’s done …..so far. He’s a political genius.

                    • TreeParty

                      Trump is a hypocrite, period.
                      Trump is a hypocrite because he lies like he breathes: continuously and unconsciously.
                      Trump is a hypocrite because he claims not to believe in global warming and rising sea levels, then applies for a permit to protect his coastal golf course EXPLICITLY from global warming and rising sea levels. What are you missing there?!?!
                      You need to pay attention!

                    • david russell

                      Imagine that. A politician that’s a hypocrite. Have you alerted the media?

                      A politician that lies? Wow! Hey, I betcha haven’t heard the one about “How do you know if a politician is lying?” Answer: “His lips are moving.”

                      Sea walls have existed long before people were even aware of GW. What’s missing is any common sense on your part….any sense of perspective. And anyway AGW is hokum as I have shown.

                    • TreeParty

                      Yes, I have alerted the media. And Trump’s favorable rating is sinking like a stone:
                      http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-christmas-least-popular-president-ever-757898
                      In spite of a “favorable economy” (thank you, Barack..)
                      The way I heard that one is “How do you know if Donald Trump is lying?” “His lips are moving” So you lost THAT bet, too.
                      Earth to David Russell: just repeating “AGW is hokum” over and over doesn’t make it true. Meanwhile, the world keeps getting warmer.
                      By the way, do you remember Trump claiming that he is not a politician?! See, he’s even lying when he’s lying!

                    • david russell

                      I’ve proved that AGW is hokum. The earth only emits 59W/M2 from incoming insolation and only 2.4W/M of the is capable of being absorbed and re-radiated back to earth as back-radiation. As it turns out 94% of absorbed CO2 relevant IR is thermalized and NOT radiated back leaving only 3% to be re-reradiated back or .072W/m2…. a pittance.

                      I repeat: CO2 induced AGW is hokum, nonsense, anti-empirical, against the laws of physics (ok. I say some of that for the first time just now, but it’s all true).

                      You’re a fool to believe otherwise unless you can counter my logic.

                    • TreeParty

                      “I’ve proved that AGW is hokum.” Have you alerted the media?!?!
                      You haven’t “proven” diddly squat. The only person who believes anything you have to say about climate is yourself….

                    • david russell

                      The media has drunk the Kool-Aid. No point in telling them. Their minds are closed.

                      You may be right that no one here believes me, but then on one here understands the science as well as I. Certainly not you.

                    • TreeParty

                      It sounds like you are wasting your time here peddling your steaming piles to “the nitwits”. You should get some research published in the peer-reviewed literature so that we can have some confidence that other people who “understand the science” as well as you claim to agree with your conclusions. I’ll look forward to it. I would honestly LOVE to believe that AGW is “a scam” and nothing to worry about; but so far it is just the barking fools in the clown car that are making that argument. They need some actual scientific underpinnings for their claims – good luck to you in providing them.
                      A good start would be to provide compelling evidence for how some global warming that started 600 years ago is causing humans to emit billions of tons of CO2 presently. Since we KNOW human activity is the source of the 45% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years, that should be a good challenge for you. And of course, you have not “proven” that some pre-existing warming is the cause of all that human activity, even though you claim that CO2 is the “effect, not the cause” of the warming.
                      I’ll go get the popcorn; let the dodging begin!

                    • david russell

                      Too late. The paleo-climate guys have beaten me to it. It’s a 600-800 year lag in the paleo record (first the warming, then the CO2). Why? I don’t really know but I’d guess ocean uptake of the heat takes a while. Anyway, whatever the reason, the warming comes first.

                      And given the above, it doesn’t matter if humans have added all this CO2, does it? — because the warming CO2 is an effect not a cause (better: not much of a cause.

                      You just can’t wrap your brain around the facts. Even last century, 2/3rd of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1940 — a period of essentially stable CO2 ppms.

                      It doesn’t require peer-reviewed science to see this whole AGW alarmism is a scam — only common sense. But common sense isn’t all that common after all, is it?

                    • TreeParty

                      Funny that you would complain about the “nitwits” when you have proven yourself to be an imbecile. How can you claim that all the CO2 that humans have put into the air was CAUSED BY WARMING?!? It was caused by the human desire to supplant human labor with machines and chemical inputs!! It staggers the imagination that someone who claims to be intelligent believes that humans are combusting billions of tons of fossil fuels as an effect of some pre-existing warming. That notion is completely idiotic. Ask any friend, if you have any!
                      100 million years ago, there where theropod dinosaurs. NOW, there are NO theropod dinosaurs. What happened millions of years is not a sufficient explanation for what happens now! Like I said; when you reach second grade, this will all become clear to you. So your first paragraph above is a sputtering, incoherent non-answer. “Why? (does the warming precede the CO2 increase in deep history?) I don’t really know..” No kidding! Your obstinacy in sticking with this “explanation” that is absurd on its face might be a sign of a mental disorder…
                      To reiterate the obvious, you should get some research published in the peer-reviewed literature so that we can have some confidence that other people who “understand the science” as well as you claim to agree with your conclusions. It’s NOT “too late”!

                    • david russell

                      Warming causes ocean outgassing, which would include outgassing of CO2. Look up Henry’s Law. Moreover the paleo climate gremlins confirm that the warming happens first and then the CO2 ppms increase. Like it or not — that’s what happens. It’s the science assuming paleo-science is valid.

                    • TreeParty

                      As usual, almost nothing you say is true or makes sense.
                      Henry’s Law: “At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.” So, NO temperature dependency in Henry’s Law. In fact, Henry’s Law would predict MORE CO2 dissolved in the ocean as the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere shoots up by 45%; and indeed, that is what we measure.
                      Maybe there is some other law that explains your claim that “warming causes outgassing”? Henry’s Law does not.
                      I am not disputing that global warming CAN cause higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. I AM disputing that in the current case, global warming HAS caused higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. HERE is the science:
                      https://skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

                      The paleo climate gremlins have established the existence of the Milankovitch cycles. They have not established that a 45% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming.
                      Indeed, here is some more actual science that

                    • david russell

                      You don’t understand the implication of Henry’s Law, to with that at DIFFERENT temperatures the amount of gas a liquid can hold will NOT be the same, even if partial pressures are stable. Henry’s Law directly implies that a warming ocean will outgas — CO2 and any other gases in solution (eg, O2).

                      Skeptical Science is a reality denying site. I won’t read it after John Cook outed himself as a scientific fraud with his “…97% of scientists believe” paper.

                      You don’t get it. Climate science (ie., the radiative forcing theory of global temperatures) is pseudo science, no matter how many authorities say differently. IT’s pseudo because it’s not empirical.

                    • halush

                      David, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. This effect is overwhelming the increase in temperature effect that you are referring to. The oceans have been a net sink for CO2 over the past 100 years.

                      You’re the one that doesn’t get it David. You have made statements on science that have been proven to be wrong time and time again.

                      You need to educate yourself.

                    • david russell

                      You really are obtuse. Since surface insolation (not CO2 IR) warms the oceans then the outgas more CO2, THAT increases the partial pressure of CO2 itself…to an unknown extent but possibly a material or even the main source in increased ppms. This is just another denial of reality by the climate gurus — they completely ignore the oceans as the possible source ot the extra CO2.

                    • halush

                      The oceans have been a net sink for CO2 over the past 100 years you imbecile. It’s anthropogenic sources that have increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere you idiot, and the oceans have been absorbing a significant fraction of those emissions.

                      You really have no accurate knowledge of any topic involving climate science.

                    • TreeParty

                      I give up! You so stubbornly deny facts and science that it is abundantly clear that no combination of evidence and logic will convince you of the truth of the matter. Good luck with your delusions..

                    • david russell

                      Giving up is the smart move for you. You don’t know much on the subject and what little you do know is wrong.

                    • TreeParty

                      “Skeptical Science is a reality denying site.”
                      Independent fact checkers beg to differ:
                      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pro-science/

                      “These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science.”

                      Jeez! You really DON’T get tired of being wrong!

                    • TreeParty

                      Very reminiscent of the cheetoh-in-chief, if you ask me. Believes the bat-$#I+ craziest stuff; just makes up really bizarre claims, lies like he breathes, and yet presumes extraordinary cleverness. No wonder he trumpets the greatness of der gropenfuhrer…

                  • david russell

                    You don’t mean that IMO. You probably mean some land masses at the coasts are rising , others subsiding. This is not the same thing as what you say.

                    You may also know that some coastal regions with tidal gauges are geologically stable. The show sea rise at much closer to only 1mm per year.

                    • david russell

                      I’m quite aware of isostasy. It’s one reason why land masses are rising where ice age glaciers existed. Are you suggesting there’s something I’m missing? or what?

                    • Grumnut1

                      Yes. Ocean height is also affected by the gravitational pull of changing seafloor conditions.
                      Mountain building under the ocean can drop sea level above it.
                      Large dense formations cause dips in ocean height.

                    • david russell

                      That point is correct but irrelevant to sea levels at the coasts (the only place it matters for human lives and property).

                    • Grumnut1

                      Yes. That’s also why ocean heights tend to be more around coastlines.
                      That’s why coastlines will be more affected.

                    • david russell

                      Your above comment is false or at least you’ve provided no evidence. As the average of all 375 long term tidal gauges show an as measured average sea level rise of only 1.56mm per year, I’d say you are wrong and in any event we have nothing to worry about.

                    • david russell

                      You can’t be serious. ‘Projections?!!!’ Bwahahaha. Sea levels are rising as to 2016 at 1.56 mm per year on average as measured by NOAA 375 long term tidal data base (compared to the 20ths century 100 year average of 1.7mm per year.

                      1.56mm per year is 15cm in 100 years….nowhere close to the 80-120 cm range in this charge. This chart isn’t science. It’s voodoo horse manure without an iota of plausibility.

                    • Grumnut1

                      I’d love to see that link David.
                      However it does seem to be a bit more than that.
                      http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html
                      ‘Projections?!!!’ Bwahahaha.
                      Where do you think they came from?
                      Do you think those agencies just copied a graph off of one another?
                      Each one had to make it look slightly different, or the teacher might think they were cheating.
                      Or do you think each one separately went over the 10’s of thousands of times this has happened over the last 650 million years and said, “You know, it’s only done it 19,000 times before. Probably won’t EVER happen again”

                    • david russell

                      I think they pulled the projections out of thin air. They don’t even meet the straight face test …. they’re laughable. By the way, the difference between the low 21 century projection and the highest is 120-80 or 40 cm. We’re 18% the way through the century and only a fifth the way we should be to make even the low estimate.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Oh now you’re heading off into the weeds.
                      Anyone can check that data.
                      Why has no-one ever bothered to.
                      Has anyone ever gone though the previous events and proven those projections wrong.
                      Do you have such a link?

                    • david russell

                      No one can check projections. The are predictions and as such they haven’t happened. Thus there’s no data to check. Of course with the passage of time you can see whether the projections were accurate, but by that point they are no longer projections. Furthermore skillfully prediction for chaotic systems is not possible. And with climate we’re talking multiple chaotic, non linear systems that are loosely coupled with one another.

                    • Grumnut1

                      The data from the 10, of thousands of times it has happened in the past.
                      Surely SOMEONE has looked at that and said.
                      “See, those scientific agencies are making it up, and here’s proof.
                      Should be pretty easy to find.

                    • david russell

                      What the past tells us is that sea levels are rising at 6″ per century. The smart money bet is that’s what we’ll see in 100 years. That’s what the past suggests.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Then you should be able to point to a paper (or even an article) that states that for each event over the last 650 million years.

                    • david russell

                      Incorrect. Our information should be based on good data and we don’t have any such back 600mm years ago. Moreover all analysis must stop somewhere. Ultimately we have to act on the basis of some uncertainty…. or else we would do nothing.

                    • Grumnut1

                      We have VERY good data going back 650 million years.
                      Certainly many of the scientists on your side of the debate say it is. They refer to it constantly and base their arguments on it.
                      Therefore you should be able to point to a paper or article using that data, stating why ocean level rise projections are incorrect.
                      Where is it, if the data is that good?

                    • david russell

                      Don’t be silly. 650mm years ago was December 22, 650,097,983 BC What was the weather like over the US that day?

                      You see how silly your “good data” claim is now, right?

                    • david russell

                      I’ve seen this. I didn’t say we didn’t have a guess about 650,000,000 years ago. I just don’t put much faith in this.

                • Grumnut1

                  So, you’re willing to accept the records are wrong, because they have more of them over a larger time.
                  Give up.

          • david russell

            Regarding Antarctica ice (90% of the world’s surface ice):

            One study (abstract link below) of Eastern Antarctica notes:
            “In this study, we describe the causes and magnitude of recent extreme precipitation events along the East Antarctic coast that led to significant regional mass accumulations that partially compensate for some of the recent global ice mass losses that contribute to global sea level rise. The gain of almost 350 Gt from 2009 to 2011 is equivalent to a decrease in global mean sea level at a rate of 0.32 mm/yr over this three-year period.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053316/abstract
            Another study (abstract link below) of East Antarctica notes:
            “During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.”
            “The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract
            This latest study concludes that the majority of the Antarctica ice loss results reflects the behavior of the unstable West Antarctica region. It is in fact the West Antarctica region which experienced the 31 percent increasing ice loss relative to prior study measurements.
            Concerning this latest studies much lower ice loss measurements in both Eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula the study provides a caution concerning the difficulty of obtaining accurate measurements in these regions noting:
            “the average change in ice sheet mass remains small in comparison to expected fluctuations in snow accumulation (Table 1), which present an observational challenge to all geodetic techniques. Although the CryoSat-2 measurements allow an improved understanding of the drivers and timescales of ice sheet imbalance in these sectors, longer-period data sets are required to separate the effects of meteorological and ice dynamical imbalance [Wouters et al., 2013].”
            The most recent satellite derived global sea level rise study available (abstract link below) determined that the rate shows no acceleration whatsoever in the period from 1992 to 2011 and amounts to only about 7 inches per century. Specifically this sea level rise study notes:
            “We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration.”
            “The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr- 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr- 1 since 1970.”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750#f0015
            The authors of this latest Antarctica ice loss study estimate that the rate of global sea level rise contributed by their measured Antarctica ice loss results is about 0.45 mm per year which is about the thickness of a human fingernail.
            The authors note that the higher sea level rise estimate from this studies ice loss measurements compared to prior study sea level rise contribution estimates of 0.19 mm per year “reflects both the improved capability of CryoSat-2 to observe regions of ice dynamical imbalance, and the impact of short- and intermediate-term changes in ice sheet mass.”
            The alarmist articles in the news about the results of this latest Antarctica ice loss study incorrectly claimed that the rate of Antarctica ice loss was “double” prior study estimates which is wrong, failed to provide this studies information showing the rate of total measured ice loss was “consistent” with prior total ice loss estimates, failed to identify the significant distinctions between the ice loss behavior between the unstable West versus more stable East Antarctica regions, failed to identify that the majority of the ice loss measured was from the unstable West Antarctica region, failed to identify that it was the West Antarctica region that had experienced an increased ice loss rate compared to prior studies and failed to identify the reasons indicated in this study which account for the increased estimate of sea level rise.

          • david russell

            As for the world being literally greener now than 200 years ago:

            Carbon dioxide emissions are making the Earth greener and more fertile, a United Nations (UN) climate scientist has said.
            In a paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Indur Goklany, who has previously represented the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally”.
            The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he adds.
            “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15 per cent,” Dr Golkany argues.
            advertisement

            “This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature.”
            Increasing crops yields has helped reduce hunger and improved human well being, as well as generating around $140 billion a year.
            As well as crops, the “wild places of the Earth” have seen an improvement, becoming greener in recent decades. Dr Golkany attributes this to carbon dioxide, saying it can also increase their water-use efficiency, thus making them more resistant to drought.
            “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters,” Dr Golkany says, “These benefits are firmly established and are being felt now.
            “Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”
            Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford admitted there were some benefits from increased levels of carbon dioxide, but nonetheless said Dr Golkany’s assertions had “Stalinist overtones”.
            He told the Sunday Times: “… I worry about the Stalinist overtones of adding up the losses and benefits and deciding humanity as a whole will benefit from global warming. Drowning Bangladeshis might not be reassured by higher crop yields in Ukraine.”
            However, in a foreword to the report, Professor Freeman Dyson, a world-renowned physicist, said Dr Golkany’s conclusions show how “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, adding that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.

            • TreeParty

              Here are some things you should know about Indur Goklany, who is an electrical engineer, and NOT a climate or agronomy expert:
              https://www.desmogblog.com/
              https://exxonsecrets.org/ht
              In fact, Mr. Goklany is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, through the Heartland Institute, at least. Why don’t you try reading some actual climate scientists and/or environmental scientists for a change, instead of all these fake scientists and industry hacks?!

                • TreeParty

                  So what?!?! Really?! The world is “literally greener” than it was 20 years ago, but the misery that is caused by flooding, fires, drought, etc. more than outweighs the “benefits” of the greening.
                  As a first approximation, the “greening” has not even slowed down the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. It the “greening” were to have any salutary effect, we would expect it to be to pull more CO2 out of the atmosphere so as to slow down the dangerous warming that we are experiencing; but the “greening” is NOT sinking significantly more CO2. Obviously.
                  Do you like to learn about climate science from someone who has no training, no expertise, no awareness in climate science?!
                  I know when I have plumbing problems, I like to call on a veterinarian to help with that…..

                  • david russell

                    This above is all nonsense (Better made up falseness). I’m not going to waste my time untangling your silly mythological thinking above.

                    • TreeParty

                      If you think that the “greening” you are trumpeting has had a perceptible effect on the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, let’s see your evidence; because I have compelling evidence to the contrary.
                      “Made up falseness” seems to be right up your alley, David.
                      “The weather keeps getting better and better in more and more places…” HaHaha….

                    • david russell

                      I am the master here. You are below my pay grade. You just haven’t learned enough to keep up. And I’m not patient enough to educate you.

                    • TreeParty

                      You aren’t “masterful” enough to provide actual evidence for your goofy assertions. You believe all the liars and poseurs. You deny a constellation of facts about the physical world. You tacitly admit that the world is warming perceptibly, and cannot provide solid evidence that the main cause is anything except human acitivities, but you claim that it’s “all good”; which anyone with half a wit knows is manifestly untrue. Good luck with your hallucinations..

                    • david russell

                      Prove your assertion. What fact have I denied? I didn’t say that humans have generally no impact on global temperatures, but rather that CO2 back-radiation cannot be more than a W/M2 or two. CO2 is in other words an extremely weak GHG. This is based on rather recent work (by inter alia F.K. Reinhart this year) showing that only 3% of CO2 captured IR gets radiated back to Earth (of the alleged 333W/M2 alleged back radiation by Trenberth).

                      All it takes to disprove an army of experts is a single fact demonstrated by a single scientist. Reinhart is a physicists with 241 published papers.

            • TreeParty

              Thanks for posting. I will try to read this article, but here are some things you should know about its author, Indur Goklany, who is an electrical engineer, and NOT a climate or agronomy expert:
              https://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany
              https://exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=807
              In fact, Mr. Goklany is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, through the Heartland Institute, at least. Why don’t you try reading some actual climate scientists and/or environmental scientists for a change, instead of all these fake scientists and industry hacks?!

              • david russell

                Being an engineer means he gets paid for results and takes the consequences of being wrong. He has skin in the game. Academics, like contract lawyers, get no consequence for being wrong, only for not publishing.

                Why is it that when presented with factual claims it seems to matter more who makes the claims than whether the claims are true?

                • TreeParty

                  Hey, David, you wrote it yourself:
                  “Drowning Bangladeshis might not be reassured by higher crop yields in Ukraine.”
                  “Being an engineer” means that Goklany has a NARROW field of expertise. I’m sure he is a terrific person, but there are wide swaths of reality that he has no knowledge of. Like everyone, by the way.

                  So I prefer to believe climate scientists and environmental scientists that study the atmosphere, and the ongoing and likely future effects of the observable global warming, in matters of climate change; rather than opinionated dilettantes. You probably prefer to take the counsel of the dilettantes whose opinions accord closely with your own. Yeah, that make total sense..

                  • david russell

                    I don’t recall writing anything of the sort. You can believe anything you chose. But you can’t back it up on any issues I’ve raised. You just don’t know enough.

                    • TreeParty

                      Look down a couple of comments in this thread. Here is what you posted:
                      “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters,” Dr Golkany says, “These benefits are firmly established and are being felt now.
                      “Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”
                      Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford admitted there were some benefits from increased levels of carbon dioxide, but nonetheless said Dr Golkany’s assertions had “Stalinist overtones”.
                      He told the Sunday Times: “… I worry about the Stalinist overtones of adding up the losses and benefits and deciding humanity as a whole will benefit from global warming. Drowning Bangladeshis might not be reassured by higher crop yields in Ukraine.”
                      Perhaps you just cut and pasted; did you not read the post?!?!
                      Let’s try to be intellectually honest here..

            • Grumnut1

              “An increase of
              the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise
              the intensity of vegetable life. . . threefold.
              Svante Arrhenius, Worlds in the Making”
              Yes NASA and NOAA were warning of this back in 2001, when it wasn’t as bad as it is now.
              NASA were holding press conferences showing pictures of the earth from space in the late 60’s and comparing it to 2001 photos.
              Huge populations of insects were moving into areas that were devoid of their predators, which was fatal for the predators too.
              Now even Antarctica is turning green.

                • Grumnut1

                  So, let’s just randomly change all of the world’s habitats and hope nothing untoward happens.
                  Good plan.
                  Lets just write an incredibly complex piece of computer software and hope it works exactly as intended the first time without any bugs.
                  I know that’s how Microsoft and Google roll.
                  Do you think Windows 10 is as complex as ALL the systems on the earth?
                  What’s the chance of habitat change going wrong,
                  As it’s already happening now. Pretty high.

                  • david russell

                    I still see no point to your ramblings.

                    Humans are generally not very smart and are driven by their emotions, typically using their reason to get what they want, not to decide what they whan, much less “what’s best.”

                    So we are systemically incapable of figuring all the implications of our actions and are thus doomed to act in the face of uncertainty and a large degree of ignorance. Moreover our emotions are geared to what we want individually and not from a perspective of many other people (certainly not the whole race, much less “all life”).

                    So if you’re suggesting otherwise, that’s not possible in this reality.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “Humans are generally not very smart and are driven by their emotions, typically using their reason to get what they want, not to decide what they want, much less “what’s best.”
                      YES!!!!.
                      What do you think the IPCC is for?
                      Why are they trying to achieve something that flies in the face of what emotion, greed and selfishness is screaming at as saying it’s a bad idea?
                      No one wants to do this.
                      It’s a bit like being immunised against fatal diseases.
                      Won’t the needle hurt?
                      Of course it bloody will.
                      However in this case the benefits is not just simply not dying of a horrible disease, but having much cheaper power then we ever thought possible.
                      Still doesn’t make the needle any better.

                      In particular the heading:
                      What are the likely impacts on ecosystems and species?

                      https://australianmuseum.net.au/what-are-the-impacts-of-climate-change

                      Also over 30% of all coral reefs have died since 1970.
                      They are expected to all go by 2050.
                      A quarter of all marine life is dependent on them for survival.
                      So it’s not just the world’s fishing industry that will take a major hit.
                      Half of the world’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the oceans.
                      It is also dying at an alarming rate.
                      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/

                    • david russell

                      The IPCC is a cesspool of nonsense.

                      You seem to revel in attributing things to AGW with no basis. [I assume you’re suggesting AGW is killing the corals]. Corals have been around for 100s of millions of years, which means at much higher temps and CO2 levels. Corals are threatened by humans, but not so much by AGW. Development and runoff are the guilty parties. But corals are hardy symbiotic organisms and will likely dance on humanity’s grave.

                      Overfishing is a major problem for marine life — again, nothing to do with AGW. This is all an artifact of the “tragedy of the commons.” Solution: Privatized fishing grounds.

                      Plants make O2 out of CO2 so more CO2 should not be a problem. In any event submariners breathe air up to 7000 ppm on their tours of duty. We can get by for the foreseeable future.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “You seem to revel in attributing things to AGW with no basis. [I assume you’re suggesting AGW is killing the corals].”
                      Here’s a Murdoch publication that agrees with that sentiment.
                      There will need to be no summer bleaching events for the next 5 years to allow the reef to recover. There are already signs it is bleaching already. The height of Summer is February.
                      Most of the death (not bleaching) of the reef occurred where there is no human population, no farms and no fishing.
                      Just hot water.
                      “But corals are hardy symbiotic organisms and will likely dance on humanity’s grave”
                      True. There’s evidence of coral reefs in Antarctica.
                      Not ideal though.
                      “Plants make O2 out of CO2 ”
                      So what happens when the phytoplankton dies?
                      http://time.com/4675022/ocean-oxygen-study-world/
                      What happens when all those extra plants release even MORE CO2 and less oxygen?
                      http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/plants-release-more-carbon-dioxide-into-atmosphere-than-expected

                    • david russell

                      So you seem to focus on “hot water” as the problem for the corals. Well if so, they AGW has nothing to do with the problem as CO2 IR cannot warm the oceans. If the oceans are warming, it’s due to something else, likely more surface insolation due to less cloudy conditions.

                      Plants will thrive the more CO2 there is….. for better or worse. Plants grow better in high CO2 conditions even in drier climates and less fertile soils. Deserts today are blooming as a result.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Can’t CO2 IR warm the top surface boundary layer, about a 10 th of a mm thick, slowing the rate of warmth from the lower depths of the ocean escaping to the atmosphere above?

                    • david russell

                      CO2 IR penetrates no more than 10 microns — 1/100th of a mm. What happens there is unknown (there’s no peer-reviewed science on it). I could be all immediately re-radiated out without affecting the temperature. It could be absorbed and reduce conductive heat loss as you suggest. We just don’t know. It could be converted to latent heat, which would actually cool the surface of the ocean skin even further. Heat loss by the ocean due to conduction is the tiniest part of the ocean surface energy balance.

                      CO2 forcing happens TOA. Which means that it’s about 1/4th the value at the surface than it is at TOA. So a 4W/M2 TOA forcing would produce about 1W/M2 at the surface. The world’s expert on these matters is Gunnar Myhre and he claims that the amount of CO2 forcing since 1715 (300 years) is 1.82W/M2. So we’re talking like .45W/M2 surface CO2 IR increase over 300 years.

                      Finally, the 2 big boosts in OHC (ocean heat content in the 20th century came before the big increase in CO2. So there’s a big disconnect there.

                    • david russell

                      Your first link doesn’t say anything and doesn’t involve any actual ocean measurements anyway.

                      Your second link is not peer-reviewed. It seems to show such a small impact as to be equivalent to ‘no effect.’

                      I stopped there.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “Your first link doesn’t say anything and doesn’t involve any actual ocean measurements anyway.”

                      ..a function of the heat flow through the air-sea interface.

                      Sorry. I thought that’s what you were on about.
                      We’re you inquiring about cats?

                      Good thing you stopped there.
                      It gets a bit scary then.

                      “Your second link is not peer-reviewed. It seems to show such a small impact as to be equivalent to ‘no effect.’

                      I didn’t ask if it was peer reviewed.
                      You be the peer.
                      Review it then.

                    • david russell

                      I’ve given you the rebuttal:
                      link 1 says nothing material
                      links 2 is not peer reviewed science.

                      Link 3 I’m not wasting my time on as I did for the first 2.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So, nothing then.

                      How’d you go with this?
                      Why is the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling?
                      Why aren’t they BOTH warming, if the world is heating up?
                      Why are nights warming faster than the days?
                      Is CO2 magical and it only works at night?
                      What makes CO2 special in that way?
                      Why can we prove all of this is due to our use of fossil fuels, very easily?
                      if it’s the sun then why haven’t we been cooling for the last 58 years

                    • david russell

                      At the stratosphere levels the air is so thin that CO2 emissions generally go to space and don’t collide with another molecule. Emitting IR cools the emitter. The same principal applies to the troposphere at high altitude, namely that CO2 emission there that don’t collide with other molecules cool the air.

                      Nights it’s more accurate to say aren’t cooling as fast. My guess (and it’s a guess) is that this is because of clouds, which keep the heat in and radiate even at night.

                      I don’t attach any significance to everything starting with “is CO2 magical” to the end.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “Emitting IR cools the emitter”
                      Then why has it changed over time?
                      “The same principal applies to the troposphere at high altitude, namely that CO2 emission there that don’t collide with other molecules cool the air.”
                      So because it’s cooling..it’s warming?
                      “My guess (and it’s a guess) is that this is because of clouds”
                      You’ll need a better guess.
                      Sounds pretty magical to me.

                    • david russell

                      This hasn’t changed over time. CO2 emission of a photon has always cooled the molecule. It has less energy after emission, for goodness sake.

                      Your middle comments are too addled to make sense out of.

                      Your last comment is both rude an uninformed. You provide no basis for even suspecting my guess is wrong. And I said it was a guess, so WTF??

                    • Grumnut1

                      “This hasn’t changed over time.”
                      So. No warming at all then of the atmosphere.
                      That’s your position and you’re sticking with it.

                      “The same principal applies to the troposphere at high altitude, namely that CO2 emission there that don’t collide with other molecules cool the air.”
                      So because it’s cooling..it’s warming?”
                      You’re admitting the troposphere is warming.
                      By “cool[ing] the air.

                      “Nights it’s more accurate to say aren’t cooling as fast”
                      They’re NOT cooling. fast. quickly or slowly.
                      They’re warming.
                      The opposite of cooling.
                      You know, when you have something that is the opposite of something?

                    • david russell

                      I didn’t say any of that in your first paragraph.

                      Your second paragraph is gibberish.

                      I challenge you to show the nights are warming at all. There’s no sun at night. At night the atmosphere cools except under extreme conditions (perhaps a massive warm front moving in).

                    • david russell

                      I did say the CO2 emissions in the stratosphere cool the stratosphere. I did NOT say there’s been no warming for 140 years.

                    • halush

                      WTF are you talking about?

                      Reinhart is a crank that posted a “paper” on the internet claiming that doubling CO2 will only cause 0.24C of warming.

                    • Grumnut1

                      David just used the phrase – to me.
                      “links 2 is not peer reviewed science.”
                      and you used
                      “inks 2 is not peer reviewed science”

                    • halush

                      Copy-paste error. David is a scientifically incompetent moron that cites non-peer-reviewed “research” on a regular basis.

                    • david russell

                      I never said Reinhart was peer-reviewed. The Tangaroa event actually supports “CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans” more than the opposite, because the putative conclusion is so de minimus as to be not material. And this work was done decades ago. Why has no one replicated it? I’ll tell you why: the results don’t conform to the warmist dogma.

                      Reinhart is 2017. The question here is “Why have all the gremlins at the climate factory never taken the suppression of CO2 re-emission into account in over 40 years of publication and 10s of $Bs of research monies?”

                    • halush

                      You said that there’s no peer-reviewed science on the heat transfer in the skin. There is you moron.

                      Backradiation is absorbed by the oceans. ~330W/m^2 worth. Without that backradiation the oceans would be frozen you incompetent moron.

                      What “suppression of CO2 re-emission” you ignorant idiot? All matter emits according to its temperature. CO2 is no exception.

                      Get an education you stupid hick.

                    • david russell

                      I did say that and it’s still true. Your opination above is not peer-reviewed science. “Back-radiation” is 99% BS. As regards CO2 assuming the 15 micron range IR is 4% of the Earth’s IR foot-print, the earth emits only 2.4W/M2 of such CO2-relevant IR (4% of 59W/m2), which can only produce in turn less than 5% of the 2.4W/M2 of ‘back radiation.’ (3% + 3% of 3% + 3% of 3% of 3% and so on, passing thru subsequent ‘path to absorption layers’ up the troposphere). Of course there are other GHG’s but the reason the earth is 288K at the surface has little to do with CO2 for sure and probably GHG’s generally.

                      Moreover, the only way the CO2 IR can ‘warm the oceans’ is by reducing conductive heat loss, as CO2 IR directly can have no other warming effect. No one to my knowledge has quantified this and that’s what I mean by “no peer-reviewed science’ on the matter.

                    • halush

                      It’s not true at all moron. The Tangaroa study has been published in the peer-reviewed literature and there are plenty of theoretical papers on the topic.

                      The simple fact is that the oceans are warmer due to the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere.

                      You’re an idiot. Go educate yourself.

    • Grumnut1

      Pseudo-science like the warming of the troposphere and the simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere?
      Pseudo-science like the fact nights are warming faster than the days?
      Pseudo-science like the as daily measured warming of the earth by satellite as 2.52 X 10^14 joules per second?
      Pseudo-science like the fact that the annual increase in CO2 levels exactly equates with our burning of fossil fuels?
      And if it’s the sun then why haven’t we been cooling for the last 58 years, ?
      Must be that pseudo-science again.

      • david russell

        There’s more to science than measurement. Indeed, you don’t need any science background to make measurements.

        Your above are presumed factual but nonetheless disjointed facts. As such they tell us nothing. Well, they say the planet is warming [slightly]. So far that’s been a good thing. Moreover, without modern instruments no one would have noticed the warming of the past 100 years.

        2.4 x 10 to the 4th sounds like a lot. But it amounts to half a Watt per square meter. If you had a flashlight producing a square meter beam of 1/2 Watt light, could you even seen your hand in front of your face at night? How long will it take to heat up 3.5Km of ocean (its average depth) even 1/100th of a degree with 1/2 Watt shined on 1 square meter of it?

        To take these bare facts and call it science is pure voodoo.

        I have shown hereon (not necessarily all to you personally, but to the thread) that:

        1) As 94% of all CO2 absorbed IR is not re-radiated, there can only be 3% of said energy radiated back to the planet.
        Thus the “back-radiation” warms the planet” meme is totally bogus

        2) It is uncontroversial that surface insolation only produces 59W/M2 of out-flowing IR into the atmosphere. I estimate that only 4% of this 59 is in the 15 micron range which is the relevant wavelength where CO2 does its AGW work. [feel freed to come up with a better estimate than 4%. ]. So that’s about 2.4w/m2 coming off Earth’s surface in CO2’s AGW absorption spectrum. This original amount won’t change materially by adding 3% more an then 3% of 3% more and so on up the troposphere). So whatever the temperature of the air, CO2 back-radiation is de minimus.

        3) Halush claims that only 6% of the atmosphere’s CO2 is actively absorbing a photon at any given time. It’s obvious then that more CO2 won’t produced more back radiation. There’s already 18x spare capacity already. Adding more capacity will have no effect.

        So while we have a bunch of facts that indicate warming is occurring and CO2 levels rising, we have nothing to connect these facts. Indeed from a timing perspective one should conclude the warming causes the extra CO2 as the warming seems to come first.

        • Grumnut1

          “2.4 x 10 to the 4th sounds like a lot. But it amounts to half a Watt per square meter. If you had a flashlight producing a square meter beam of 1/2 Watt light, could you even seen your hand in front of your face at night? How long will it take to heat up 3.5Km of ocean (its average depth) even 1/100th of a degree with 1/2 Watt shined on 1 square meter of it?”

          It’s 2.52 X 10^14. A touch more.
          How long will it take to heat up 3.5Km of ocean (its average depth)?
          Enough to boil dry all of Sydney Harbour (55Km^2) in 12 hours.

          “As 94% of all CO2 absorbed IR is not re-radiated, there can only be 3% of said energy radiated back to the planet.
          Thus the “back-radiation” warms the planet” meme is totally bogus”
          A photon of IR only travels an average distance of 25 meters before being re-ratiated, half back to the planet.
          I thought the atmosphere was more than 25 meters thick, but I could be wrong.

          “Halush claims that only 6% of the atmosphere’s CO2 is actively absorbing a photon at any given time. It’s obvious then that more CO2 won’t produced more back radiation. There’s already 18x spare capacity already. Adding more capacity will have no effect.”
          If we could see at the wavelength that CO2 mainly absorbs, even 200 ppm would look like a thick London pea souper of a fog.
          So, you’re right. Adding more does virtually nothing.
          So, what IS going on then?
          You’re pretty clued up on this so that’s an easy one.

          ” Indeed from a timing perspective one should conclude the warming causes the extra CO2 as the warming seems to come first.”

          Correct:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A&index=27&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

          • david russell

            Sidney harbor contains an infinitesimal amount of water compared to all the oceans, lakes, rivers, and glaciers of the world.

            I have myself read the 25 m value for the distance to absorb all 15 micron IR from the surface. I’ve also read 47m. But Heinz Hug claims 10m and I’m going with that. Furthermore it doesn’t make any difference whichever is correct.

            The key point is not how long the distance, but how much of the absorbed photons by CO2 are actually reemitted AT ALL. Now before reading F.K. Reinhart 2017, I (like you apparently) believed “they all were” and so as you say “half get radiated back to the earth.” And in the next 10, 25 or 47 jump half of the half get radiate back….. and so forth to the point CO2 radiates to outer space.

            Now if ALL the CO2 IR were merely thermalized (the energy transferred by collision as vibrational, or heat, to the surrounding molecules) well there be no re-emissions, and therefore no “back radiation” at all.

            It turns out that the latter is closer to the truth. Reihart calculates that close to the surface collisions between IR-excited CO2 molecules and the surrounding [99.9% nonGHG] molecules drains off sufficient energy that only 6% of these CO2 molecules re-emit…. leaving only 3%, not 50%, of back radiation. And that’s just for the first 10,25,or 47m layer. The same process repeats in layer #2, which only has 3% of the original surface IR, so then only 1/2 of 6% x 3% of the IR in the 2nd layer is re-emitted downward…… and that takes another haircut on its way down through layer #1.

            Clearly there’s deminimus back-radiation if 94% of the IR is thermalized at each layer.

            You seem to agree with me that if only 6% of CO2 molecules are IR excited at any one time, then adding more CO2 (indeed 18x more) will have no additional warming effect.

            What do I think? Answer: CO2 is a weak GHG. Water vapor and clouds do virtually all the heavy GH-Effect lifting. Moreover the surface temperature is a result of atmospheric pressure. It’s warmer at the surface than higher up because the pressure is greater at the surface — there are more molecules per unit volume. It’s as simple as that. This is not anything more complex than looking at the adiabatic lapse rate upside down. This rate is usually expresses as “the temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere.” Just convert that into the same thing but from top down, namely, “The atmosphere warms as you go down deeper into the troposphere.”

            • Grumnut1

              Oh, you’re kidding.
              ” “the temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere.”
              So you think the reason it might be a bit chilly standing naked on the top of Mt Everest is purely because “there are [less] molecules per unit volume.”
              What are those molecules doing?
              What are the molecules doing on your skin as they convect and radiate heat?
              Why do you think it’s a good idea to have on thick thermal clothes in that situation, despite wanting to shoot a racy calendar?
              Why is that a good analogy for wanting to have some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
              Water vapour IS a stronger greenhouse gas. It does about 66% of the warming, compared to only about 20% for CO2.
              CO2 doesn’t form clouds. It doesn’t rain CO2.

              “Sidney[sic] harbor contains an infinitesimal amount of water compared to all the oceans, lakes, rivers, and glaciers of the world.
              It doesn’t happen once. That’s the rate.
              So, in a year you’ve boiled dry 730 Sydney Harbours.
              In a decade 7,300.
              Sydney harbour is 562 million cubic metres.
              Of boiled water.
              To bone dry.
              Work that one out.

              “You seem to agree with me that if only 6% of CO2 molecules are IR excited at any one time, then adding more CO2 (indeed 18x more) will have no additional warming effect.”
              I DID. Clearly.
              Those figures all sound about right too.

              So what is ACTUALLY going on?
              Surely you know, or you wouldn’t be here.

              • david russell

                Hot air rising is doing work and the energy to perform that work is coming from internal sources …. the heat in the hot air. Hence the air cools as it rises.

                So what?

                The cold air above must compress as it falls to fill in for the hot air rising. The compression warms the falling cold air. It’s the same principal that allows a diesel engine to ignite the compressed fuel/air mixture without spark plugs. Where is the energy coming from to power the compression? — from converting the potential energy at altitude to kinetic energy lower down.

                Frankly I don’t know what point your first paragraph was making. It certainly did nothing to refute my adiabatic theory of why the surface air is warmer than air at altitude.

                Sidney Harbor example is still immaterial. You are overly awed by large numbers. (so are most of us).

                • Grumnut1

                  “The compression warms the falling cold air. It’s the same principal that allows a diesel engine to ignite the compressed fuel/air mixture without spark plugs”

                  So the world’s atmosphere works like a diesel engine then?

                  “Where is the energy coming from to power the compression? — from converting the potential energy at altitude to kinetic energy lower down.”
                  One that’s running, or one that’s turned off?

                  • david russell

                    I can’t tell if you’re being flippant. I’ve explained my position clearly. The energy in a parcel of air under isothermal conditions can be consider uniform throughout. In a gravity well such as exists on Earth such a parcel will have potential energy at the top that gets converted to kinetic energy at the bottom ….. and vice versa This is independent of any GHE.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So what drives this perpetual motion machine?
                      At the very least, it’s the Sun.
                      That has been on the wane since 1959?
                      So what else then?

                    • david russell

                      Well, if you don’t know this, you’re too junior varsity to play with the big boys, specifically with me. I’m not going down a rabbit hole with you on this one.

                    • david russell

                      I now see the chart. It’s just a different way of presenting what I said. Moreover, I don’t really agree with the radiative forcing of GHGs part (well at least regarding CO2). I’ve explained why elsewhere. None of the values in your charts are measured. They are model derived.

                    • david russell

                      I don’t have a lot of confidence in the temperature data. They keep changing it every few years making the past measured data colder and the recent measured data warmer. I suspect a substantial portion of the man-made global warming is ‘man made-up.’

                    • david russell

                      More gibberish on your part. I can’t answer gibberish questions. Furthermore I don’t recall basing any of my arguments on ‘temperature data.’

                    • Grumnut1

                      So are we going into global cooling or what?
                      Is that’s what’s been happening the last 140 years, or is it ALL made up?

                    • david russell

                      “So are we going into global cooling or what?” …That’s a possibility, but I haven’t argued this on this thread.

                      The world has both cooled and warmed over the past 140 years or so. Overall it’s warmed perhaps 1C.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “Overall it’s warmed perhaps 1C”
                      Good. So if as you say, the top of the troposphere is cooling, why have you just stated “Overall it’s warmed perhaps 1C”
                      Particularly, as this whole topic is about why the stratosphere is cooling.
                      Which you haven’t even addressed yet.

                    • david russell

                      This is getting silly. The measured temperature (the global warming) is measured at the surface (or near it). It’s not measured at the earth’s core or in the stratosphere. All the energy [just about, ignoring heat sinks] that come to the earth from the sun, must leave it (energy in = energy out). Within the troposphere it gets colder with altitude.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Warming has not JUST happened at the surface.
                      It is actually warming FASTER higher up in the troposphere.
                      It is going in the other direction (cooling) at the same time in the stratosphere.
                      WHY?

                    • david russell

                      I’m going to leave it to you to answer this question, which I can barely understand, and for sure cannot see the relevance of.

                    • david russell

                      It takes 2 to communicate. I think the problem is with your communication skills, but it could be me I suppose. This is one of many of your posts that I couldn’t make sense of — not that I didn’t know the answer to whatever it was you were asking, but I just couldn’t figure out what you were saying.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Warming has not JUST happened at the surface.
                      It is actually warming FASTER higher up in the troposphere.
                      About 8 Km’s up.
                      It is going in the other direction (cooling) at the same time in the stratosphere.
                      WHY?

                      That’s pretty straightforward.

                    • david russell

                      I’ve told you why cooling happens from stratospheric CO2. The temperatures within the troposphere decline based on the dry adiabatic lapse rate and the wet adiabatic lapse rate. “8 km up” is a meaningless number because the mix of wet and dry adiabatic lapse varies with latitude (there’s more ‘wet” in the tropics and more ‘dry’ at the poles). If you mean by “8 km” something like “close to the tropopause” well, at that level the CO2 in the air is cooling that air, so once again I don’t know what you are talking about.

                    • Grumnut1

                      ” well, at that level the CO2 in the air is cooling that air”
                      Exactly. I actually meant just a bit below the tropopause.
                      There, the air that “CO2 in the air is cooling”, is warming.
                      Over time.
                      More quickly then here, one or two meters above the ground.
                      In the stratosphere, it’s doing the opposite.
                      WHY.

                    • david russell

                      One of us is suffering a brain cloud. I hope it’s not me. But let’s take a step back. Can you provide a source for what I think you are asserting? {“the near tropospause is warming and the stratosphere is cooling” — something based on measurements, hopefully, please.}

                    • david russell

                      Thanks. I’ll look at his later and probably respond — tomorrow (I’m going out and will probably have a few drinks, so today is out).

                    • david russell

                      I’m not a member of AAAS, so I can’t read the article. I’m not interested enough to join, but perhaps you should and see if the article text answers your question.

                    • Grumnut1

                      The paper is not there to provide the underlying explanation.
                      It just looks at specific aspects of measurements of the jet stream ect.

                      The atmospheric trends for 1979 to 1997 (fig. S1) exhibit features similar to those in Fig. 1, which indicates that existence of the trend is not contingent on the episode of record-high mid-latitude temperatures that occurred in summer 1998 in response to the 1997 El Niño (1) but is a robust feature of the period of record from 1979 onward (fig. S2). The same pattern is evident in the trend in radiances from MSU channel 2 (fig. S3), which is a further proof of the enhanced mid-latitude tropospheric warming corresponding to the enhanced stratospheric cooling.

                      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2006/05/23/312.5777.1179.DC1/Fu.SOM.NEW.pdf

                      So. What caused it?

                    • david russell

                      Why? The IPCC in the TAR said the atmosphere is “….. a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system.” (read: unpredictable). The presumption that skillful prediction of a chaotic system using imprecise, inaccurate or unknown initial conditions is laughable, not to say bogus science.

                      My position is not THAT I CAN PREDICT the weather/climate, but rather that skillful prediction more than say 2 weeks out is impossible….. by anyone. And the only reason short term prediction is possible is that air cell momentums can be projected out only a few days before chaotic parameters overwhelm them.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Then, it’s a good thing it’s got nothing to do with either weather or climate.
                      I’ll say that again for the hard of hearing.
                      Or climate.
                      This is stuff you need to know to make ANY kind of argument.

          • R. Kooi

            “….
            London stank constantly of coal in an age when that fossil fuel was the primary source of heat and power. The soot drifting down, commonly referred to as “blacks” and the smell of coal were pervasive as were the pea-soupers, fogs caused by a foul mixture of soot, smoke and fog. Some measure of the density of what Mr Guppy referred to as “a London particular”can be gathered from a report in The Times for Tuesday, 5 December 1837, describing the previous day’s fog.

            “Not only was the darkness so great [in the morning] that the shops were all lighted up., but also every object in the streets, however near, was totally obscured from the view of the persons walking along. In Piccadilly the darkness was very great, and the confusion caused by the vehicles running against each other beyond description. About 9 o’clock the Hastings branch coach, which had just left the Old White Horse Cellar, while endeavouring to turn into St. James’s-street, ran into the shop window of Mr Hoby, the celebrated bootmaker, at the western corner, which it demolished with a fearful crash, breaking upwards of 40 squares of glass.

        • Grumnut1

          Why is the troposphere warming and the stratosphere cooling?
          Why aren’t they BOTH warming, if the world is heating up?
          Why are nights warming faster than the days?
          Is CO2 magical and it only works at night?
          What makes CO2 special in that way?
          Why can we prove all of this is due to our use of fossil fuels, very easily?
          if it’s the sun then why haven’t we been cooling for the last 58 years

  16. James Owens

    The economics are shifting. Scale and efficiency in producing and installing wind and solar are steadily driving down costs. Same is now happening with battery storage. But those costs are very local – largely depending upon the amount of wind and sun. These costs also depend on is it new generation capacity or is it replacing existing capacity.
    So non-hydro renewables (largely solar and wind) continue to grow at double digit rates around the world, and prices continue to fall. Electrical production for these renewables is just over 8% of the total this year. So right now they’ve become technically established and are on their economic feet.
    The decision-makers in board rooms can read the data and run the numbers.

    • R. Kooi

      Solar, Wind and Nat. Gas have driven Electric Rates DOWN in Texas because of their devotion to Renewable energy.
      DOWN by double Digits.

      Nationally Electric Rates have gone down for the 1st time….1%…
      Thanks to VERY REAL COMPETITION FROM CLEAN, DEPENDABLE, RENEWABLE energy.

    • R. Kooi

      “The Great Smog of 1952 – History in the Headlines
      http://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-years-ago

      ” – In the Great Smog of 1952, the city of London was brought to a standstill by a dense blanket of toxic smog that reduced visibility to a few feet.

      The “Big Smoke” was the worst air pollution crisis in European history, killing an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 people.”

      Coal Energy TOXIC Waste !

      We have been pumping/DUMPING this TOXIC WASTE into our atmosphere for centuries.

      Our Coal Energy Toxic Waste is a bit cleaner today….but still deadly and still climate changing!

      We are NOW approaching nearly 2000 dump sites in 47 states:
      earth lined & earthen damned open dump ponds and pits !
      Each one that has been tested to date, is leaching TOXIC CHEMICALS into
      ground water aquifers….
      Each one that has been tested to date, is leaking TOXIC CHEMICALS into creeks and rivers.

      • Robert

        Fiscally irresponsible
        Environmentally irresponsible.
        Ethically irresponsible.

        Science denying

        I’m seeing a trend….

        Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

        ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
        http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

        ” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

        To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

        The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”

        Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
        http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

        There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
        By Bart Verheggen

        https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/
        longer
        https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

        …and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at
        Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

  17. R. Kooi

    These kind of events demanded attention from the citizens in environmental movements,
    that started in the early 1800’s all the way thru TODAY !

    “…1948 Donora smog.
    The 1948 Donora smog was a historic air inversion that resulted in a wall of smog that killed 20 people and sickened 7,000 in Donora, Pennsylvania, a mill town on the Monongahela River, 24 miles (39 km) southeast of Pittsburgh.”

    “Once upon a time, you could touch the air in New York. It was that filthy. No sensible person would put a toe in most of the waterways.

    In 1964, Albert Butzel moved to New York City, which then had the worst air pollution among big cities in the United States.

    “I not only saw the pollution, I wiped it off my windowsills,” Mr. Butzel, 78….”

    “….For much of its history, Chicago covered by smoke, soot – Chicago …
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/…/ct-dirty-air-pollution-environment-chicago-flashback-pe...

    – 1, 1957, when this picture was taken at State and Lake streets in downtown Chicago, but it might as well have been midnight as smog descended on the city and blotted out the sun. (Hardy …. Occasionally the smoke sunk lower, and “pedestrians had to pass through an atmosphere that was simply choking.”.
    ….
    “…. A London Fog

    A London fog is brown, reddish-yellow, or greenish, darkens more than a white fog, has a smoky, or sulphurous smell, is often somewhat dryer than a country fog, and produces, when thick, a choking sensation. Instead of diminishing while the sun rises higher, it often increases in density, and some of the most lowering London fogs occur about midday or late in the afternoon. Sometimes the brown masses rise and interpose a thick curtain at a considerable elevation between earth and sky. A white cloth spread out on the ground rapidly turns dirty, and particles of soot attach themselves to every exposed object.

    R Russell, London Fogs (London: 1880), p. 6.

  18. Siding WithConservatives

    Unfortunately for Canada, with their child PM, they are an outlier in trends towards climate sanity and good energy management. World leaders laugh at him and never visit there…..does that say enough?

0 Pings & Trackbacks