What would it take to convince a climate realist?

Categories

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  • Brin Jenkins

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

    • DavidAppell

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

      • Brin Jenkins

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

        • DavidAppell

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

        • DavidAppell

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

          • Brin Jenkins

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

            • DavidAppell

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

              • Brin Jenkins

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

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

                • Ian5

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

                • Robert

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

                • Robert

                  “one thought was 90%”

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

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

                • Robert

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

        • DavidAppell

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

  • Dano2

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

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

    Best,

    D

    • Brin Jenkins

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

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

      • Dano2

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

        So who knows what you are trying to say here.

        Best,

        D

        • Brin Jenkins

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

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

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

          • Dano2

            Greenhouse gas. Look it up.

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

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

            Best,

            D

            • Brin Jenkins

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

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

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

              • Dano2

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

                Best,

                D

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Troll

                  • Dano2

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

                    Best,

                    D

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • Dano2

                      You said it was easy to convince a critic

                      No I didn’t. I stated:

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

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

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

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • Dano2

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

                      Best,

                      D

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

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

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks, I’ll take those points on offer!

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

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Specify “minor”

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      little

                    • DavidAppell

                      Specify “little.” Quantatatively.

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Prove your claim of 10%. Cite that science.

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Prove it.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      David you don’t understand feedback!

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Feedback on what?
                      Warming? CO2 growth?
                      What?

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

                      More plants mean more carbon dioxide sequestered.

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      So when doesn’t that happen?

                    • VooDude

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

                      The above, refutes that.

                    • DavidAppell

                      No it doesn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Believer

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Proof of CO2’s heating effect:

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Believer

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

                    • Goldminer

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

                    • Dano2

                      False, false, false.

                      Compelling.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Goldminer

                      Was I talking about you ?

                    • Dano2

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

                      Best,

                      D

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

                    • Steinar Hansen

                      How many times do you need DavidAppell to explain?

                    • Once would be nice.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Johnstoirvin

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Wrong. The water vapor feedback is strongly positive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      How can that cause warming?

                    • Goldminer

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

                    • Dano2

                      Mann totem!

                      Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Voodude

                      Mann v Steyn

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Goldminer

                      IPCC political science agreed.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Goldminer

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

                    • You’re just figuring that out?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

                      Josh again

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                      A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:

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

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

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

                    • Junk science that just won’t die.

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

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

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

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

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

                      And, hilariously, this:

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Bigfoot??? Fluff.

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Cartoons don’t trump peer reviewed science….

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

                      And the IPCC concurs:

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

                      Required …

                    • DavidAppell
                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Or remain ignorant — you’re choice.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Don’t want to address the decreasing solar intensity?

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Here’s the data:

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Hmm?

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Right — the sun is not responsible for modern warming.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

                      Nothing on the accuracy…

                    • DavidAppell

                      What is problematic with the “accuracy?”

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Wrong, dummy.

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Try this, from LASP:

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

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      See IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch 10 Fig 10.8.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Suggest you read

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                      Short Quotes

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Again you are attempting to hoodwink.

                      From the Conclusions section of Ermolli et al:

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

                      The science is certainly not ‘settled’.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Who do you think you are fooling with such denials?

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      “…what does a greenhouse gas physically do?”

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                      Ridiculous.

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      Try these:

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell
                    • DavidAppell
                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • VooDude

                      The usual alarmist pap and drivel.

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Where is the PROOF?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

                      The measurement of SSI is fraught with errors and uncertainties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Yes — huge uncertainties.

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                      What “good science” do you have?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You’re avoiding the fundamental questions again.

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Why would it care?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Why not?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Stop avoiding the question.

                      How can you see ice?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      Literally, everywhere.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Absolutely, totally, utterly false.

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

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

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

                      I don’t have a “boss”.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Then you have no science.

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Why are you so afraid?

                    • VooDude

                      David, you seem unusually rabid, today.

                    • VooDude
                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      BTW, here are the data. Plot them:

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

                    • VooDude

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

                      Convenient, on-line linear regression analysis web site:

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

                      Plug in the data … cut-n-paste.

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      More attempted hoodwinking.

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      What about that science — specifically — is lacking?

                      I bet you can’t say.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The science is lacking absoulte accuracy.”

                      ALL SCIENCE lacks absolute accuracy, dummy.

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      You still aren’t LOOKING AT THE DATA.

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      I interviewed her afterward:

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Robert

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      From the abstract of the paper you linked to:

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      Emphasis mine.

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      More mumbo jumbo you don’t understand.

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Says nothing about atmospheric or surface temperatures, does it?

                    • VooDude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Says nothing about temperatures, does it?

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

                      Such a large change isn’t there, period.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Wrong. LOOK AT THE DATA:

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

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      THIS PAPER IS OLD! Didn’t you notice?

                      SOLAR IRRADIANCE IS NO LONGER MEASURED VIA ERBS.

                      THE PAPER ONLY LOOKS AT DATA UP UNTIL 1993.

                      Really, this is just despicable dishonesty.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • VooDude

                      What part of Lee’s statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      Used to.

                    • VooDude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

                      Josh

                    • Voodude

                      Douglas Adams:

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • Brin Jenkins

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Mary Brown

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

                    • Believer

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

                    • Debauche

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

                    • Robert

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Robert

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You were cheated.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Ridiculous — you are woefully uninformed.

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Not very much” isn’t an answer.

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      What is the basis or calculation for this claim?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      “If there were, someone could state it .”

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Because one shows that your ideas are inconsistent and faulty.

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      You should have learned this in 6th grade science.

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                      That *IS* global warming.

                      See how simple it is?

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • Robert

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Yes, inapplicable.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why aren’t the two-stream equations applicable?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      I’ve told you many times by now.

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

                      Got it finally?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      How exactly do you think climate sensitivity is calculated??

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Do you really deny that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation??

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      What difficulty in growing crops?

                      Please specify these difficulties.

                      Show that they were more difficult than today.

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      What was the difficulty growing crops back then?

                      Please specify, with documentation.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      A molecules concentration is only ONE of two relevant considerations.

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      See also:

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Because these two things alone imply manmade global warming.

                    • BigWaveDave

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • Frank W Brown

                      BULLSHIT! GOOD GRIEF!

                    • Steinar Hansen

                      Ok. That argument convinced me!

                    • waxliberty

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      None of this contradicts anything I said earlier.

                    • Voodude

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What do you think is emitted when Hydrogen is burned?

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • gnac

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Your last link is 404.

                    • Voodude

                      Fixed.

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Exactly. So what is your point?

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      Worthwhile to watch Gavin Schmidt’s TED talk:

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

                    • Voodude
                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

                    • gnac

                      please explain please…..CO2 vs warming

                    • DavidAppell

                      What?

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • waxliberty

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • Voodude

                      Methane and Nitrous appear to be pretty well eclipsed:

                    • waxliberty

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • waxliberty

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • Voodude

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                    • VooDude

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      Yes, clouds both cool and warm.

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

                    • VooDude

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

                      “…and is always negative on average.”

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • waxliberty

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      As for your claim that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      You don’t know much science.

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

                      Do you know what that means?

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

                      Which was the point I was making.

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      The discussion is now about the pH of the ocean.

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

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

                      Plus as I pointed out, the pH is near neutral and moved, over the last 250 years or so, 0.11 units closer to NEUTRAL, or less reactive.

                      Your claim the ocean (implying the ENTIRE ocean the way you write it and say it) is turning to acid is the typical scare mongering you and your ilk use to try to fool those who are even less intelligent than yourselves. A small change, when the pH is near neutral, can be disingenuously expressed as “30%”, but remember, we’re talking about a change of 0.11 over almost 250 years here. Nothing to get your panties in a twist over, Dave.

                    • NO, because there is ZERO evidence to support any claim that the entire ocean’s pH has been measured to the level necessary to support such a claim.

                      I will agree that, over a period of about 250 years, very limited measurements, inadequate to support any such claim, if nevertheless deemed falsely to be adequate to support such a claim are taken at face value, then the average pH of the ocean’s surface waters at the sampled location show a change of 0.11 towards neutral over a 250 year period. However, since the samples probably were not properly corrected for time of day, time of year and local bias they are essentially meaningless and your scare tactic claim that the entire ocean is turning to acid is ridiculous, since in fact these inadequate measurements of the surface waters indicate if anything, it is becoming LESS REACTIVE, moving towards NEUTRAL, though only by a tiny fraction. Due to the fact it’s so close to neutral, or NON REACTIVE, a small change can be deliberately misrepresented as a large one if you try – and you’re trying, I’ll grant you that!

                    • DavidAppell

                      “NO, because there is ZERO evidence to support any claim that the entire ocean’s pH has been measured to the level necessary to support such a claim.”

                      Marcel, you don’t read much science, do you?

                      Perhaps too much time spent spouting your opinions while hiding your true identity?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Are you really foolish enough to believe that any accurate measurement of ocean pH has ever been made?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      So when doesn’t that happen?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I thought I had already categorically answered by saying that a cold object can’t warm a hotter object. You were supposed to come up with an example to counter this.

                      Can you state any theory that explains or demonstrates in a testable way, how CO2 in the atmosphere causes or could cause any warming?

                      Do you believe that any accurate measurement of ocean pH has ever been made?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “I thought I had already categorically answered by saying that a cold object can’t warm a hotter object.”

                      Ok, back to the beginning.

                      Do all objects emit radiation?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Back to the beginning of what?

                      Any matter that has heat, radiates. But, so what?

                      Stick to the subject, and admit that you can’t give a real life example of a cold object warming a hot object.

                      Admit that the Sun is capable of heating part of Earth’s surface to a temperature greater than 50°C, and that much of a day’s heat gets stored in the atmosphere as vaporized water.

                      There is no reason to need “greenhouse gasses” to explain Earth’s average surface temperature of ~14°C, is there?

                    • DavidAppell

                      OK, you’ve finally admitted that “any matter that has heat, radiates.”

                      (Of course, all matter has heat, so we can dispense with that stage of the argument.)

                      When that heat is radiated, where do its photons go?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “There is no reason to need “greenhouse gasses” to explain Earth’s average surface temperature of ~14°C, is there?”

                      Of course there is, and you can’t prove otherwise. This has been known since at least 1827:

                      “On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
                      – English translation by William Connolley:
                      http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “Of course there is [reason to need “greenhouse gasses” to explain Earth’s average surface temperature of ~14°C], and you can’t prove otherwise.”

                      No, there is only the silly trick of calculating temperature from average insolation reaching but not reflected by Earth’s surface.

                      The silly trick ignores the all of the heat that is stored in the oceans, atmosphere and regolith, and the chemical storage of energy in plants. The storage of heat causes a time delay between insolation and loss by radiation, and a stored energy hysteresis in the diurnal and annual cycles

                      It is obvious that the Sun can heat parts of Earth’s surface to much higher than 50 deg C without needing “greenhouse gases”, and that Earth’s surface cools mainly by convection and latent heat transport, and not primarily by radiation.

                      What reason explains why you have not fallen for a silly trick?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      So when doesn’t that happen?

                    • DavidAppell

                      BTW the greenhouse effect on Earth is 30-35°C, not “~14°C.”

                    • BigWaveDave

                      ~14C is the approximate average surface temperature, idiot! Pay attention.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Wrong — that calculation assumes no clouds. It was claimed that if temperatures were low enough there would be no clouds.

                      Clearly this is wrong, since clouds appear in the Arctic and in the cold stratosphere.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Stick to the subject, and admit that you can’t give a real life example of a cold object warming a hot object.”

                      We’ve been through this — it’s an elementary conclusion of basic laws of physics, and it’s happening around us all the time.

                      The Earth’s surface actually receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does the sun — about twice as much:

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

                    • DavidAppell

                      You should read this from Roy Spencer, a prominent skeptic and serious scientist:

                      “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still,” July 23rd, 2010.

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

                      Note he writes:

                      “…this is happening all around us, all the time.”

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So, I take it you can give no real life example of cool warming hot.

                    • I will take your continued failure to present ANY evidence that backs up your RIDICULOUS claim that the oceans are turning into acid as your admission you have none.

                      And I’ll take your failure to provide ANY evidence that even SUGGESTS that there’s been a comprehensive sampling program as your admission you know there wasn’t one.

                      Thanks for playing, do come again soon!

                    • DavidAppell

                      The ocean is acidifing. That DOES NOT mean its pH is < 7 and what humans classify as an acid.

                      This is Chemistry 101. Time to start learning.

                    • I’m way ahead of you. When the pH is above 7, any reduction is moving towards neutral.

                      You and your despicable ilk carefully craft your claims in ways that are designed to mislead. This borders on a criminal act, as it is deliberate deception, calculated chicanery,

                      Of course any negative change in pH is a move towards acidity, but when the pH is >7 it is a move towards LESS REACTIVE.

                      And you also make a big deal about how a tiny change (when the pH is >7) can be expressed as a seemingly larger percentage in the prevalence of negative ions since there are so few of them about that any tiny change seems larger the further above 7 you get.

                      You’re an example of how a tiny bit of knowledge can be misused in significant ways.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Nature doesn’t care about your pH numbers.

                      It reacts to the actual chemical structure of the ocean. And the ocean is acidifying.

                    • Yeah you said you would ignore them, BUT YOU DIDN’T, DID YOU?

                      LIAR!

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”

                      Yes. Because each of those 4 fans is EXTREMELY LOUD.

                    • No, that’s just you spouting nonsense again. The 300 fans that represent water vapor are arguably much louder. If you look at the total IR spectrum of the two gasses, that is.

                      Ever bother to do that?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The 300 fans that represent water vapor are arguably much louder.”

                      They aren’t louder after the baseline greenhouse effect has taken place.

                      After that, they are only louder once the 4 CO2 people have done their business.

                    • Now before I respond to your comment, which I note has NOTHING TO DO WITH OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, I will point out you said you are going to ignore any comments that aren’t on that topic, so I expect you to keep your word and NOT reply to this one.

                      Here you display a fundamental misunderstanding of both atmospheric physics AND basic theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      You and others who hold such theories to be dogma, unassailable, suggest that there is some limit to the amount of water vapor that can be in the air and there is in fact a temperature dependent limit – air of a certain temperature can only hold so much water vapor.

                      However, as water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the more water vapor that is in the air, the higher the temperature goes, and the more water vapor can be added… up to a point. There must be some limiting factor, because if that were all there was to it, the oceans would boil and all the water would be in the atmosphere.

                      Now your modification to my analogy suggests that, somehow, once the 4 fans representing carbon dioxide start yelling, they somehow supercharge the 300 fans that represent water… but that is not what even your theory claims happens. Your alarmist warming theory says the power of water stays the same, but the QUANTITY of water changes because, as discussed briefly above, warmer air can hold more water vapor before becoming saturated. There should be detectable increases in:

                      1) evaporation and atmospheric water vapor
                      2) convection
                      3) release of latent heat in the lower troposphere and
                      4) measured temperature due to that release of heat

                      You may remember how the models predicted an atmospheric “hot spot” that stubbornly refused to appear for a great length of time, to the embarrassment of the acolytes of the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. And even when they finally claimed they found it they had to admit it was nowhere near what their models said it would be.

                      So in this case the proof, which you still have not provided, is that, according to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism theory, we should have seen a measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor by now, more convection and significantly more warming in the middle to upper troposphere.

                      Before you deny or discuss it, first, remember you said you were only going to talk about ocean acidification (after talking about, presumably, 25 other things, then expecting me to just not rebut your fallacious arguments on each, I guess), and second, if you ARE going to try to argue the point, do it with peer reviewed, published SCIENCE, not sites that are full of lies, propaganda and talking points like you always do.

                      Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is quite simple.

                      More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4.

                      This change in thermal structure of the troposphere is known as the lapse rate feedback. It is a negative feedback, i.e. attenuating the surface temperature response due to whatever cause, since the additional condensation heat in the upper air results in more radiative heat loss.

                      In the IPCC AR4 (2007) this was presented graphically. I’ll pause while you look it up.

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html

                      The figure shows the response of the atmosphere to different forcings in a GCM. As one can see, over the past century, the greenhouse forcing was expected to dominate all other forcings. The expected warming is highest in the tropical troposphere, dubbed the tropical hot spot.

                      The discrepancy between the strength of the hot spot in the models and the observations has been a controversial topic in climate science for over 25 years. The controversy [i] goes all the way back to the first paper of Roy Spencer and John Christy [ii] about their UAH tropospheric temperature dataset in the early nineties. At the time their data didn’t show warming of the troposphere. Later a second group (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of RSS) joined in, using the same satellite data to convert them into a time series of the tropospheric temperature. Several corrections, e.g. for the orbital changes of the satellite, were made in the course of years with a warming trend as a result. However the controversy remains because the tropical troposphere is still showing a smaller amplification of the surface warming which is contrary to expectations.

                    • DavidAppell

                      There have been many replies. Too many to resolve anything. So I’ve reduced the discussion to ocean acidification.

                      Do you agree that the ocean has acidified by 30% since the beginning of the industrial era?

                    • That’s a deliberate misrepresentation and also wrong. The total ocean has changed little. The surface waters have ALLEGEDLY changed their pH value by 0.11 units over a period approaching 250 years. But this is based on limited, questionable measurements. Furthermore, this change is smaller than daily and seasonal changes in pH that have been measured so it’s pretty much meaningless.

                      To recap – NO, the entire ocean is not 30% more acid, the INSUFFICIENT measurements I referenced above suggest that a limited and INSUFFICIENT sampling of the SURFACE WATERS leads to a dubious claim of a pH change of .11 units TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, but the pH is still alkaline, not acidic.

                      When the pH is close to neutral, as it is, a small change can be expressed, in deliberately disingenuous fashion, as if it were a large one. Typical of your past behavior and that of your ilk, that is exactly what you are doing – doing your best to mislead by sensationalizing a perfectly normal, natural process.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Are you Marcel Cook? Because one of your sentences is plagarized from this:

                      http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Climatedialogue.org-extended-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf

                      “Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere.”

                    • Never went to that page… wrong again.

                    • DavidAppell

                      And you plagarized an entire paragraph — the one beginning with “The discrepency between….” and ending with “….contrary to expections” from

                      http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/07/16/climate-dialogue-about-the-missing-hot-spot/

                      You didn’t even bother to take out the footnotes, which was very sloppy of you and a sure sign of plagarization.

                    • Never went to that page. Wrong again.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Suspiciously, the sentence you wrote that begins “More warming at the surface….” was also plagarized from Marcel Crok:

                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

                    • DavidAppell

                      Does Bodhisattva = Marcel Crok? (whoever he is)

                    • Nope, keep guessing.

                    • Yeah, I’m going to have to find the comment where you used “Skeptical Science” as your source, since, according to the admission of the website’s owner/author:

                      About Skeptical Science

                      This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

                      http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

                      So, basically, you get your climate science from a self-employed cartoonist.

                      Nice.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The topic has shifted to your plagarism….

                    • I did make a quote… and I gave the website it came from.

                      No such luck, we’re sticking to the topics of your previous posts. No moving the goal posts – another of your favorite tactics when you won’t admit you’re losing the debate.

                      No making this about me. This is not about me. If you think I failed to attribute something properly, indicate what it is. I’m not perfect, I make mistakes too. You haven’t attributed much of the nonsense you’ve been spewing, not since I tumbled onto the fact you get your ‘science’ from a site that is run by a hack cartoonist.

                      And as noted, I gave a reference to the site I got that information from – HIS OWN SITE. Of course he’s changed the page since then. I used the way back machine to recover his earlier quote.

                    • DavidAppell
                    • DavidAppell

                      Marcel, you went quiet all of a sudden…..

                    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwea0LZQe9k

                      I had a simple choice. Entertain 3 young, attractive women or waste time with your nonsense.

                      Not a real choice, as there was only one sane course of action.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Marcel, why are you afraid to reveal your identity? Did you think your cutting and pasting would never be noticed???

                    • Funny, you sure seem to notice it. And you’re not alone.

                      Fact is that I ONLY posted under my real name… until I found out that lunatic liberals much like you were viciously attacking, and also threatening the family of, a local university professor (who’s name was remarkably similar to mine) here at UCSD who contacted me, once he found out that they were after me, not him, and begged me to stop doing so.

                      The irony was he was also a lunatic liberal.

                      In any case, one of today’s burning questions is why there are actually people in this world stupid enough to believe that a little CO2 in the atmosphere (400 ppmv) is what is controlling oceanic heat trends.

                      But, given that they got the warming/CO2 relationship backwards, it’s not surprising they also have the atmosphere/ocean relationship backwards.

                      Needing to believe in and perpetrate a hoax drives them to do very odd things.

                    • DavidAppell

                      So you are afraid to comment under your real name.

                      That’s what I see — you are a coward.

                    • So… you revert to childish bullying and name calling as if that will achieve… what goal, again?

                      At least I’m not THIS GUY:

                      http://davidappell.com/David_Appell_3.jpg

                      As I said, I always posted under my real name UNTIL A UCSD professor (who’s name was remarkably similar to mine) started getting threats and hate mail from people like YOU – who knows, maybe YOU were one of those doing it. Liberal losers such as yourself threatened him, his family, because that’s what you liberals do and why you “succeed” in your efforts – too many people back down to your nonsense out of fear.

                      So you’ve never, ever posted under any other name but David Appell? Not once?

                      Aren’t you the guy who keeps recommending I check out the scribblings of some guy who posts… USING A PSEUDONYM? That was you who suggested that, wasn’t it? Why are you a big fan of other people who post under pseudonyms and so hateful when I do it? That old liberal DOUBLE STANDARD thing again?

                    • DavidAppell

                      We’ve already seen that Bodhisattva = Marcel Cook, because you have heavily copied his work, word-for-word.

                      Didn’t you write a couple of forgotten papers with Nic Lewis?

                    • I also quoted Michael Mann. So does that make me Michael Mann? Plus I quoted the IPCC – so I’m the IPCC?

                      Here’s a quote from Al Gore because today I feel like being falsely accused of being Al Gore!

                      Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are… Former Vice President Al Gore in an Interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006

                      That was Al Gore admitting that he believes it is appropriate TO LIE to get people to react out of fear, throw logic and reason out the window and react emotionally, when he stands to make millions in the process. And that’s exactly what he did – and he’s laughing at you and your ilk all the way to the bank!

                      Because IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT’S CAUSES AND LIKELY RESULTS, nobody will care.

                      Now let me see who else I can get you to accuse me of being:

                      “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

                      “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Tim Wirth, U.S. Senator.

                      “No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

                      Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada, quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999

                      “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

                      OTTMAR EDENHOFER, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, also a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007, explaining how this isn’t really about carbon or climate but rather about wealth redistribution.

                      http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22086-dictators-demand-trillions-in-climate-loot-from-west

                      Dictators Demand Trillions in “Climate” Loot From West

                      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

                      No, I’m not Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitting here that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism and pull off the largest fraudulent wealth redistribution scheme, in history – and no doubt raking a generous portion off the top in the process. And flying all around the world to exotic locations, spewing carbon all the way, to talk about how we have to spew less carbon, as they spew more and more.

                      POP QUIZ: What actual reductions, not promises, but actual reductions, in the total carbon emitted by humans have been accomplished after all the money and effort spent by the IPCC and everyone else involved?

                      Has Al Gore stopped buying huge homes that create tremendous carbon waste to heat, cool and maintain? Is he still flying on a private jet? Travelling around in fleets of SUVs?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You said:
                      “Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere re-radiates it, some of it downward”
                      The first part “essentially ALL” is probably less than 90%, so you only stretched it a little, but you completely missed the obvious point of Bodhisattva’s
                      “Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up.”,
                      which is that a share of downward re-radiation must get re-re-radiated upward again (and perhaps again and again so I’ll call it re^n-radiation).

                      What is the downward fraction of the “ghg” re^n-radiation that is attributable to CO2?
                      Bodhisattva analogizes the preposterous hypothesis that CO2 contributes significantly to surface temperature with:
                      “You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”
                      to which you zealously replied:
                      “Yes. Because each of those 4 fans is EXTREMELY LOUD.”

                      Yep, they are at least as loud as you are ignorant.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I see you want to avoid this, but our entire conversations turns on it:

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      When doesn’t that happen?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”

                      Know how much ozone is in the ozone layer? 10 ppm (1 molecule in 100,000).

                      Know what you’d be without that seemingly miniscule amount?

                      Dead.

                    • Are you suggesting that ozone is “well mixed”. Do you know what you would be if we put you in an atmosphere containing 10 ppm ozone?

                      Why is it you’re comparing a layer that is at the top of the atmosphere with what is supposedly a well mixed gas (that’s what we were told, turns out not to be exactly true) when the two are as different as the sun and the moon?

                      Do you always use inappropriate comparisons, hoping nobody knows better?

                      Don’t answer that, I know from my past attempts to see if you would be honest that you do.

                      Back to OZONE.

                      Highly reactive, ozone concentrations above 15% can explode on contact with organic substances, especially strong reducing agents.

                      Inhalation: Causes dryness of the mouth, coughing, and irritates the nose, throat, and chest. May cause difficulty in breathing, headache, and fatigue. The characteristic sharp, irritating odor is readily detectable at low concentrations (0.01 to 0.05 ppm).

                      Eye Contact: Ozone is an irritant to the eyes causing pain, lacrimation, and general inflammation.

                      http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_msds.htm

                      Good thing the ozone layer is nowhere near the surface of the Earth, huh?

                      You know, ozone is a greenhouse gas also, right? SO when we were supposedly destroying the ozone layer we were fighting global warming, and it is possible some of this warming you are so afraid of is due to our efforts to stop destroying the ozone layer. yaTHINK?

                    • DavidAppell

                      The average concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is 10 ppm.

                      In the atmosphere it’s only 0.3 ppm.

                    • So you admit you brought up ozone as a straw man argument then?

                      AGREED!

                      Let’s speak no more of it.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The current discussion is about pH, not ozone.

                    • My sentiment exactly – and yet YOU brought up ozone, then claimed you won’t talk about it. Why did you do that?

                    • Well, I just said

                      Let’s speak no more of [ozone] yet there you are continuing to bring it up and speaking about it.

                      Hey, if you didn’t want to talk about ozone, why did you bring it up in the first place?

                      You going to take my advice and stop talking about it, or you going to keep talking about it after saying let’s not?

                      And by the way, you already lied and broke your promise to only talk about pH in other ways, too.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Marcel Cook (= Bodhisattva): The exact value of pH and how you choose to classify it is not the relevant factor for ocean impacts — changes in acidity is relevant. Differences from adaptation are relevant.

                    • I don’t know what nonsense you’re trying to peddle claiming I’m Marcel Cook. But you can keep it up, it only makes you look silly.

                      Yes, the exact value of pH IS the ONLY thing that is relevant. You cited an article that claims that snail shells are dissolving due to acid oceans but that is a blatant lie. The oceans are not acid, they’re alkaline. And all they saw was an ALLEGED change in the weight of the shells, which could be due to any number of things OTHER than ocean pH.

                      But the other thing is that ocean pH is not a static value, it is ALWAYS CHANGING. And CO2 is not the only thing that causes it to change. And human CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total carbon budget of the planet. I know these facts make you so uncomfortable you refuse to acknowledge or discuss them, so we really can’t begin to have a discussion since you refuse to accept reality.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why did you plagarize Marcel Cook?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Acidic oceans are dissolving shells of tiny sea snails, researchers find” ABC.au, 5/2/16
                      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/acidic-oceans-are-dissolving-shells-on-tiny-sea-snails/7376696

                    • Except we already know the claim that the oceans are turning into acid IS A LIE. The oceans are becoming LESS REACTIVE, the pH is MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE.

                      Your citing alarmist propaganda, lies and talking points, which is all you’ve ever done. That’s not science, by the way. You still got no science to back up your wild, obviously false assertions about the ocean turning to acid, I note!

                      Many natural processes affect acidity levels in the environment—examples include photosynthesis and respiration—so the acidity may vary by an order of magnitude or more (or in pH units, by 1 or more) as a result of natural biological, physical, and geological processes on a variety of different spatial and temporal scales.

                      Scientists have observed that natural variability in seawater acidity (and thus pH) is strong and can be much larger on short time scales than the observed and projected changes in acidity due to alleged ocean acidification due to atmospheric CO2 over the scale of decades to centuries.

                      Ocean acidification, related to the uptake of CO2 at the ocean surface, causes a relatively slow, long-term increase in the acidity of the ocean, corresponding to a decrease in pH. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global average pH of the surface ocean has decreased by 0.11 from approximately 8.25 to 8.14. This is movement TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.

                      Over the course of the Earth’s history there have been significant periods when the geologic record suggests that oceanic reefs essentially ceased to exist, or at least left no record of their continued existence. Despite fraudulent claims that such changes are unprecedented, the fact is they are not. And we are nowhere near such an event. In fact the biosphere is THRIVING. The deserts, which you & your ilk claimed were becoming more arid, getting larger, worse, are actually GREENING:

                      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-carbon-dioxide-desert-greening-01209.html

                    • DavidAppell

                      Oceans are acidifying — their acidity has increased by 30% since the pre-industrial era.

                      This isn’t controversial.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “This isn’t controversial.”

                      It also isn’t supported by observation.

                      What makes you think it isn’t controversial?

                    • No, what is controversial is your deliberately deceptive decision to describe it in percentage terms.

                      Since the pH is above 7, instead of giving a more reasonable, descriptive explanation of what is going on (the pH OF THE SURFACE WATERS has allegedly changed on the order of -.11 over around 150 years or so) you deliberately try to make it sound as bad as you can by expressing it in the way that maximizes it. You leave out that the only reason it’s a 30% change is because, with so few negative ions, a tiny change is proportionally large.

                      This is the same deliberately deceptive way you express the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in that amount over time.

                      Now fortunately there’s a fairly large portion of the population that won’t react with fear the way you and your ilk hope, but rather will ask more questions – well how much is 30% and over what time frame? How was this figure determined? And the most important question, IS IT VALID?

                      You avoid answering where these measurements were taken, when, how, over what period of time, during what times of the year – all questions that involve a real understanding of what’s going on, since ocean pH changes NORMALLY AND NATURALLY throughout the day, throughout the year and over time.

                    • DavidAppell

                      pH is meaningless. It’s just a made-up number for the convenience of know-nothings like you. Nature doesn’t care what your pH values are.

                      The acidify of the ocean is increasing — 30% since the Industrial Revolution.

                      It’s almost like you know no science whatsoever.

                    • You still don’t seem to get it. I will let the membership and leadership of the American Chemical Society know you’ve decreed that pH is meaningless, a made-up number. That happens to be critical to a number of industrial and end user processes right down to making sure it’s safe to swim in my pool or jump into my hot tub!

                      Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

                      And here’s another direct quote example from you:

                      The acidify of the ocean is increasing

                      You just used a verb where a noun belongs. Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

                      And no, this whole kerfuffle is based on

                      seawater that is undersaturated with respect to aragonite upwelling onto large portions of the continental shelf, reaching depths of ~40 to 120 meters along most transect lines and all the way to the surface on one transect off northern California.

                      and an experiment where they took a bunch of Limacina helicina and tortured them until they found a level of pH that would dissolve their shells in a month and a half, then said that level is what they expect the whole ocean will become by the year 2100. Someone should have reported this blatant example of animal cruelty to PETA.

                      As usual with you who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, they also take single bits anecdotal evidence and falsely claim there’s a trend, when in fact the trend is exactly the opposite: See the claims about more, and more powerful tropical cyclones while the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index has been generally declining since that prediction was made. One of the anecdotes involved a company that took certain fish out of their natural environment and tried to raise them in surface waters of a different pH than the fish normally experienced in their natural habitat. It didn’t work out so bueno.

                      And there you are with your “but… but… but… 30%!” claim.

                      Yes, indeed, it has, but only because, at pH values that HIGH there’s such a DEFICIT of positive ions that a tiny change equals 30%! I already explained this to you!

                      And no, pH is not a “made up number”, it is a tool to describe the number of moles of hydrogen ions per cubic decimeter. The name stands for “potential of Hydrogen” and it is determined by the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration in gram atoms per liter. It’s not made up, it’s a DIRECT and VITAL measurement.

                      I was going to ask you WHICH LOG because you probably don’t know. But I decided to just move on.

                      By claiming it’s irrelevant you prove who the KNOW NOTHING IS!

                      It’s you!

                      Over nearly 250 years (from around 1751 to around 1994) the CLAIM is that surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14.

                      A decrease of 0.11. Over about 250 years.

                      That’s a change of 0.00044 per year. Doesn’t sound so scary when you use the actual numbers instead of finding and using the scariest way to express it (which still isn’t that scary – 30% over 250 years works out to 0.0012 per year).

                      Because the number of free hydrogen ions is so scarce at this pH level (less than 10 to the negative 8 power), because expressing it APPROPRIATELY does not invoke the FALSE FEAR that the ocean is turning to acid (see the definition of ACIDIFY – which is defined as TURNING TO ACID) when in fact it is becoming LESS REACTIVE, moving towards neutral, ever so slightly, a tiny change can be accurately expressed as 30% by those wishing to give the false impression that this change, at this level, is significant.

                    • DavidAppell

                      pH is a human construct, and nothing more.

                      Nature reacts to acidity, or its converse, alkalanity.

                      And acidity has increased by 30% in the industrial era.

                    • You keep making semantic and misleading arguments:

                      Yes, just as we measure speed in MPH or KPH, and we measure distance in miles or km and we measure time in hours, minutes and seconds – all of these things being HUMAN CONSTRUCTS and none being something you can just dismiss if you live in the real world like I do.

                      Why don’t you go jump into a large, deep pool of liquid with pH of 2 then tell me how pH isn’t important? Do that and let us know how that works out for you!

                      As I explained, the only reason this MINUSCULE change in pH can be expressed as “30%” was because the “acidity” (which was actually alkalinity) was SO LOW that a TINY CHANGE still works out to 30%.

                      Plus as I pointed out, there are areas of the ocean (and other bodies of water) which are routinely a LOT LOWER IN pH (i.e. a lot more ‘acidic’, and yet still alkaline) than this average level that resulted – and yet life THRIVES there. These measurements are not representative of the entire ocean – this is what you don’t seem to understand – or, if you do, it just proves you’re even more of a deliberate liar than I’ve already proven you to be.

                      The point you seem to stubbornly refuse to admit or discuss, but you just slipped up and did mention it, is that yes, nature responds to acidity OR IT’S CONVERSE, ALKALINITY (sic: alkalanity).

                      And the oceans, according to ALL, have become LESS REACTIVE. Have MOVED TOWARDS NEUTRAL.

                      This is not scary enough. Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid – yes, you never used those words, but you know that is the intent. To fool liberals, who are easily fooled, into believing that yes, the oceans are turning to acid when the chance is so minuscule that human blood pH changes that much with no significant issues, the ocean pH changes that much sometimes in a day or over the course of a year with no problems.

                      You can continue to be frightened by what is normal and natural. Don’t expect us to join you.

                      But I do recommend you make an appointment to have your medications checked.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Blah blah bitch whine bitch blah whine.

                      The only thing that matters is how ocean acidity differs from what organisms have adapted to.

                      And that acidity has increased by 30%.

                      Quite a lot.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid”

                      I have never said the ocean is turning to acid.

                      You are a cheap slut whore liar.

                      You should be ashamed of yourself, for continually lying about this.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “And the oceans, according to ALL, have become LESS REACTIVE. Have MOVED TOWARDS NEUTRAL.”

                      Braindead Einstein Marcel Crok: organisms _DO NOT CARE_ about your labels.

                      They only care about how chemistry differs from what they have adapted to.

                      And now they must deal with a 30% increase in ocean acidity compared to what they have adapted to.

                      Even dumb people like you should be able to understand that. Unless you want to keep lying about it all.

                    • You seem to think that the entire ocean has experienced a pH change of 30%.

                      This in fact is another false idea and yet you can’t seem to grasp that you’re wrong, or purposefully misleading others, in this respect.

                      In review – we’re talking about limited measurements of limited areas over limited times, many of the measurements being nonstandard and suspect, only recent measurements considered to be standardized and trustworthy. Basically those from about 1980 on. And even those don’t cover the whole ocean surface or the ocean depths.

                      And, as noted, the change in pH we’re talking about is LESS THAN SOME BODIES OF WATER EXPERIENCE IN A DAY, OR OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.

                      And you can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t something to get all excited about because it’s normal and natural, not the dire emergency you keep lying and claiming it is.

                    • Let us put this ridiculous alarmism of yours on this topic to rest once and for all. You are basing your fears on an estimate not on any actual extensive, global, rigorous measurements, that the ocean pH changed 0.11 pH units over nearly 250 years, for an annual change of 0.00044. Further you claim that species cannot handle this sort of change without dying off, apparently – well go ahead and say YOU didn’t claim that, it’s basically what you & your ilk are at least IMPLYING even if you are careful not to actually use those particular words and SAY it.

                      At Pulau Payar (Strait of Malacca) the natural daily change of pH was found to be 0.05. And the ocean and all it’s little critters and the plants they enjoy are still doing fine.

                      By the way, since they are actually measuring a change in ALKALINITY they actually express it that way, or by saying “more basic” or “less basic” because scientists try to avoid using scary words – they want to communicate information, not strike fear into the hearts and minds of their audience.

                      But let’s return to Pulau Payar for one more important point. The big fear you express is over a CLAIMED (but not PROVEN) change in average ocean pH from around 8.25 to around 8.11. You claim this drop is a catastrophe and could doom the whole ocean food chain, don’t you? Or at least that’s the line of total bullfeces that is peddled by your ilk.

                      The range of pH at Pulau Payar was from 8.15 to 8.1 And this is an area noted for it’s wide diversity of marine animals and plants, all doing fine at pH values that are lower than the low end of the two numbers you’re so afraid of, which you keep misrepresenting as acidification, acidifying, i.e. TURNING TO ACID. Because TURNING TO ACID is the definition of the word you keep using, though you deny it, as if you didn’t know that.

                      But wait… THERE’S MORE!

                      In the study I’m quoting from here (The Diurnal Changes of Seawater pH and Alkalinity on the Coral Reefs of the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea), the other two sites they monitored had pH levels that actually hit 8 regularly – and never made it above 8.05 at one location (Pulau Bidong)… and varied between 7.9 and 7.95 at another (Pulau Gaya)!

                      Their finding was the pH fluctuates based on patterns governed by biological activities such as photosynthesis and respiration.

                      And one more thing about your paltry “30%” change – the State of California hath decreed that they will see to it that no matter what nature does, the pH of the waters of various oceanic areas adjacent to the state shall not vary outside the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5. Two whole orders of magnitude. What’s the percentage there, skippy?

                    • DavidAppell

                      A pH change of -0.1 corresponds to an increase in acidity of 30%.

                      The calculation is laid out here, very clearly:

                      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html

                    • 30% of a tiny, tiny amount of hydrogen ions is still a tiny, tiny change.

                      And less than some bodies of water change during the daily cycle. And less than some bodies of water change EVERY YEAR.

                      As I explained, you’re deliberately trying to avoid admitting that when you have say .000000001 and you change it 30% you’re not talking about a significant change. Yes, you may or may not have explained the calculations correctly on your web page but the point you’re still stubbornly trying to avoid admitting is that 30% of nearly nothing is even less than the nearly nothing you started with.

                      The pH is ABOVE NEUTRAL, it is ALKALINE, MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE. Explained that way, the honest way, nobody is going to be frightened except liberals who cling bitterly to their fears despite the FACT they’ve been debunked.

                      You try to belittle pondus hydrogenii, only because you know it’s hard to fear a change from 8.24 to 8.13 or whatever it was on that scale, which is not irrelevant, it’s the common way to express the acidity/alkalinity of things in the real world.

                    • DavidAppell

                      A 30% increase in acidity is a 30% increase in acidity.

                      It’s not your right to call it large or small.

                      That depends only on the organisms that have adapted to a particular ocean chemistry and now must adapt to a rapidly changing one.

                      You are a coward, who can only twist words and bitch and whine. Shameful.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The pH is ABOVE NEUTRAL, it is ALKALINE, MOVING TOWARDS NEUTRAL, LESS REACTIVE.”

                      You are a massive liar.

                      Nobody cares how you label it. The only thing that that matters is chemistry. That is all.

                    • This is EXACTLY the sort of lie I was talking about. And yes, I know that I answered this one before.

                      “ACIDIC OCEANS” is a lie. The oceans are not acidic. They’re alkaline. Using the words “ACIDIC OCEANS” is a deliberate lie.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I never said the oceans are acidic, Einstein.

                      I said they are acidifying. And they are.

                    • No, I’m not Einstein either.

                      Yes, you said “acidifying”.

                      Now you’re playing silly semantic games to avoid having a rational, adult discussion because you know you can only lose if we do that.

                      The definition of “acidify” is “become acid”.

                      But thanks for playing and do come again soon!

                      You’re so fired!

                      FROM: Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying macroalga to ocean acidification

                      predicted to cause a decrease in pH of 0.3–0.5 units by the end of the century

                      And yet to date it ALLEGEDLY only managed a change of 0.11 over 250 years. Suddenly in the next 80 years it’s going to change the pH 3-5 times as much?

                      I smell Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism!

                      In this same paper they admit that:

                      …near-shore marine organisms live in a highly variable pH environment where daily pH fluctuations owing to biological activity can exceed 1 unit. These changes are often driven by primary producers increasing pH in the surrounding seawater during the day via photosynthesis, and decreasing pH at night owing to respiration

                      And… wait for it!

                      In some regions, night-time decreases in pH (to less than 7.4) exceed those predicted owing to [alleged] OA over the next 100 years (pH ∼ 7.65).

                      But… but… this is a change to well below the actual values cited as the average before and after the 250 years! Those were 8.25 and 8.14! How can ANYTHING survive in waters that are as ACIDIC as pH 7.4!

                      And there’s so much more…

                      Currently, it is not known how daily shifts in pH within near-shore ecosystems influence the physiology or the ecology of calcifying organisms, nor is it understood how these pH fluctuations could interact with the effects of [alleged] OA. It is difficult to reproduce the environmental heterogeneity that occurs in the field within a laboratory setting. For example, experimental manipulations of light and temperature in experiments with marine species usually use tightly controlled continuous levels, even though these environmental factors are much more variable in the field. To date, only one study has manipulated pH over a diurnal cycle mimicking ecologically relevant pH shifts (daytime pH = 8.00, night-time pH = 7.77)

                      I’m guessing the significance of all that will go right past you & none of it will stick.

                      And didn’t they get the memo that you weren’t supposed to admit that this alleged climate change is actually GOOD?

                      … in some instances coral recruits responded positively to both daily fluctuations in pH and to OA.

                      Wow, there goes your whole belief system. And that’s just one paper that killed it. There’s many more!

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Acidification” is an increase in acidity.

                      That’s exactly what is happening now.

                      Nature doens’t care about what you call an acid or a base. It cares about the acidity it has adapted to.

                    • There you go again, engaging in personification/anthropomorphism.

                      Nature doesn’t care because it can’t care. It doesn’t have a brain or an intellect.

                      And you’re wrong. “Acidification” is an increase in positive ions.

                      In this case we’re actually likely experiencing a reduction on negative ions, not an increase in positive ions, but I haven’t looked into it to verify that, not that it matters, BECAUSE THE SEA WATER IS STILL CHANGING A TINY, TINY BIT, BECOMING LESS REACTIVE.

                      A lot of the scary ‘evidence’ you and your ilk use came not from actual real world settings but from lab work that was done by biased people determined to strike fear into the hearts of people, as your side does, AS YOU DO WITH YOUR STUBBORN INSISTENCE THAT 30% IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A TINY CHANGE IN A TINY VALUE.

                      30% of next to nothing is even less than next to nothing. This is why you want to avoid using REAL VALUES. Now when the real values are huge numbers and the percentage is what seems insignificant you switch and studiously avoid speaking in terms of the percentage.

                      In terms of percentage, what was the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere versus everything else 150 years ago and what is the percentage of CO2 versus everything else now?

                      Do you know how to convert 270 ppmv and 400 ppmv to percentages?

                      Now I’m being distracted as I rush to finish this, so if I get the math wrong do correct it, will you? But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130% – which you’re claiming is exerting a dominant influence on the other 99.96% of the atmosphere?

                      Really?

                      And what’s more the ocean had VASTLY more carbon stored in it than the atmosphere did – or did you know that?

                      And you’re claiming that the TINY change in the SMALLER reservoir is driving the change in the LARGER reservoir?

                      Really?

                    • DavidAppell

                      More lies, Marcel.

                      Nobody cares about your arbitrary labels.

                      The only thing that that matters is chemistry. That is all.

                      And ocean chemistry has become 30% more acidic since the beginning of the industrial era.

                    • You seem to think that if you call me by some other name it will bother me. You sure are childish! Are you ever going to grow up?

                      Keep calling me whatever you like – it only shows how petulant and ridiculous you are!

                      You clearly don’t understand chemistry. Because on this end of the pH scale the actual physical change is likely just a reduction in excess OH negative ions, not an increase in H plus ions. But the change, due to where we are on the scale (near neutral) is so small (in relative terms) that even your insistence on using percentage indicates either your profound ignorance or your deliberate attempt to make it into something scary when it really isn’t.

                      Keep on using scare tactics, it only reveals what a paranoid fool you are to believe your own nonsense. As for me I’m still going to continue to jump in the water, though today was not that great a day for it and I had a previous musical engagement, three of them in fact, it turned out, as some very talented folks asked me to sit in despite the fact I was originally scheduled to only appear once.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Marcel Crok: The pH scale is arbitrary. It is made only for human convenience.

                      Ocean organisms react only to changes in acidity.

                      Do you deny that the ocean’s acidity has increased by 30% since the beginning of the industrial era?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130%.”

                      How much has the absorption cross section of the atmosphere changed because of this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

                    • Not very much – and do I need to explain what happens to the radiation curve as a heat emitting body warms up or do you know enough about that to actually understand that the heat emitted by the Earth is not all and only emitted on the very narrow areas of the IR spectrum where CO2 is a significant player?

                      Do you understand how the recent El Niño helped the Earth shed a lot of this heat you and your ilk keep falsely claiming is being stored somewhere? How that event and other similar events, by other names, effectively shed that heat you claim is accumulating?

                      The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, no matter how much you anti-science types wish it was. The attack on CO2 is ridiculous and borders on being criminal and I’m just hoping that some common sense returns soon enough to see those who are still pushing this fraud pay for it.

                      Now bear in mind I’m not saying the Earth hasn’t warmed, but due to the deliberate, ongoing falsification of the records of past temperatures, the deliberate destruction after falsification of some records (JONES), we really won’t know what we SHOULD know and in fact climate science is being pushed back 100 years or more thanks to you & your ilk.

                      Now I have someone who is demanding my attention – don’t you wish you did?

                    • DavidAppell

                      How much has global average ocean acidity changed since the beginning of the industrial era?

                    • DavidAppell
                    • DavidAppell

                      “REAL WORLD temperatures…still are falling behind the lowest predictions,”

                      False.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/625d5a6271f649628edaab1c49a61ab2485d6ca5c0ca5d39725ac54eaffd21fb.jpg

                    • Hansen? Really? The guy who said there would be an ice-free Arctic by now? He’s you’re go-to guy? The guy who said parts of NYC would be under water already? He’s your authority? The guy who made ridiculous, impossible predictions about sea level increases?

                      Although you did make a good point here that I will emphasize – the more people fail to swallow this farce, your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, the worse the predictions have become.

                      Still, since you provided NO EASILY VERIFIABLE SOURCE for your images, I suspect they’re not quite as valid as those which appear in peer-reviewed presentations. I could be wrong – provide your exact source for these – a URL where you found them.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I gave you Hansen’s projections.
                      You can see how it compared to reality.

                    • You gave us an image without giving us any sort of actual link as to where it REALLY came from, despite me requesting one both before and after you provided it.

                      You claim it is from Hansen but it does not match ANY of his public statements. Furthermore, you ignored the CURRENT data that I provided that was what I was talking about – and I provided you with a link to the peer-reviewed, published source. You will find a similar graph in the latest IPCC report, if you bother to look.

                      I do note that you went back 40 years to find something that does not match the subsequent predictions of the IPCC and others, and does not match the public pronouncements of it’s alleged author.

                      HOWEVER, if you note the trend of the observations, you will see they’re bout to crash STRAIGHT THROUGH his predictions – so even your likely invalid source proves my point – the observed trend is significantly different than the projected trend. Note Hansen shows the temperature BELOW the observations at first but very shortly the observed temperatures will bulldoze straight through his predictions, clear through to the other side.

                      My point was, and remains, that the trend appears to be following either his 2c (coal phaseout in 2000) or 3 (no growth) scenario, even though human behavior followed his 1 (fast growth) scenario as shown on the image you provided from Hansen.

                      And keep in mind the ‘observed’ line you show there is very likely the one that was fraudulently adjusted, not a valid representation of what really occurred. The slope and zero point of the ‘observed’ line are dubious at best.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Again, the discussion is about ocean acidity.

                      I’m not willing to discuss several items at once, because nothing ever gets resolved that way.

                    • the discussion is about ocean acidity.

                      Oh really?

                      It’s about ocean acidity?

                      But you gave you Hansen’s projections – that have NOTHING TO DO WITH OCEAN ACIDITY – you’re just trying to get the last word. Go ahead, just ignore my responses to all your posts on all the other topics then.

                      You can see how it compared to reality. on this graph YOU PRESENTED does it say ANYTHING about ocean acidity?

                      http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/625d5a6271f649628edaab1c49a61ab2485d6ca5c0ca5d39725ac54eaffd21fb.jpg?w=600&h=483

                      And now do the comments in YOUR POST that I’m replying to, that said,

                      I gave you Hansen’s projections.

                      You can see how it compared to reality.

                      I did forget to mention that you should look CLOSELY at YOUR GRAPH, because it shows, at the right hand end of the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS, that the trend flattens out and perhaps even turns negative. That is to say that the more CO2 that was in the atmosphere, the slower the temperature increased, and in fact it is possible (though we will have to wait and see) that an inflection point was reached and with increasing CO2 the average temperature will start to DECLINE!

                      Gives “hide the decline” a whole new meaning!

                      I totally understand your desire not to be beaten on every point I brought up. You seem to think you’re unsupported, nonsensical claims about the ocean turning to acid may be the one topic where you might come out on top – but actually you’ve already lost there, too.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I am only willing to discuss one topic at a time.

                      That topic is about ocean acidity. Until we agree on that, I’m not interested in chasing a dozen different threads to no effect.

                    • I can see why you’re so wrong. You can’t even count your own responses. I posted once and you responded, I believe, approximately 25 times. Now I may need to check each one and make sure… but I saw 25 responses and it appeared they were to my one post. I don’t blame you – you’re doing so bad it’s not surprising you want to limit the areas you’re proven to be clueless about. I’d rather go back to the one where you claim that CO2 is somehow covering a bigger area than all the other constituents of the atmosphere, but if you prefer that I just run circles around you on the topic of ocean acidity, fine, we can go there.

                      As I SAID, JUST IGNORE ANY OF MY OTHER COMMENTS.

                      Unless you are still the same guy who just has to get the last word, always, like before.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’ve made myself clear — I will only discuss one topic at a time, and to begin that topic is ocean acidification.

                      Until then, there’s nothing to discuss.

                    • Now you’ve revealed yourself as a liar because you quickly started making wild claims about who I am and where I got this or that quote, most of them wrong.

                    • Because you’re tired of being shot down on so many subjects and you think you’re safe on that one – yet you’ve already been blown out of the water on it, too.

                      And you lied – despite the fact you posted 25 replies to me then started posting this every time I replied to one of those 25 replies on the topics YOU replied about, you immediately went off on a tangent, claiming that I had committed plagiarism and claiming I was someone I was not, claimed I got something from three different websites, or was it four.

                      At best I might have failed to include ONE link at ONE point due to being interrupted while answering the flurry of SPAM POSTINGS you were in the middle of producing. But it’s clear you KNEW, as I knew you would, as was OBVIOUS FROM THE CONTEXT that they were not my words, nor was I trying to suggest they were. So you’re false claims of plagiarism were just a lame excuse to break your promise to only discuss your absurd claim that the oceans are turning to acid, which we both know is not the case.

                      The entire ocean probably has not experienced a significant change in pH. A limited sample of surface waters suggests a change that is smaller than that which occurs daily in some parts of the world and annually in others.

                      In other words, INSIGNIFICANT.

                    • You’re a liar, you didn’t stick to that topic, you tried to make the discussion about me.

                    • You know, after posting ONE or TWO responses to a couple of your earlier posts, I stepped off the deck and took a walk down the beach and back. When I got back I found about 25 responses by you, on about as many topics, including some that were way out in far left field. I started to respond to each of them and your response, to me continuing to discuss topics YOU chose to write about, was that you were not going to talk about any of those topics YOU chose to write about, you were only going to try to press the ABSURD claim that the oceans are turning to acid.

                      When they’re actually becoming less reactive, moving towards neutral. But only by a tiny bit – what was it? A pH change of 0.11 over about 250 years? And that’s just a guess, an estimate, and it’s just for a very limited (insufficient) sampling of the surface waters, probably not appropriately corrected for location, time of day, time of year, etc.

                      And, based on that, you’re still attempting to press the ABSURD claim that THE ENTIRE OCEAN is turning into acid?

                      Really Dave? That’s what you want to continue to make a fool of yourself asserting?

                      Be my guest!

                      (Only you didn’t. Right after posting this LIE, variants of it, about 25 times, you turned right around and went off on different tangents. You haven’t changed. You were a liar before and you’re a liar now.)

                    • Yeah, you SAID that, but quickly proved you are a liar by trying to make the discussion all about me, who I was and where I get my quotes.

                    • THIS JUST IN:

                      MEMO TO THE WORLD:

                      Dave Appell says that nobody anywhere should ever schedule any sort of meeting where more than one item is on the agenda because attempting to discuss more than one thing ALWAYS results in NOTHING getting resolved.

                      You know, Davie, as far as myself and the people I generally choose to associate with, we have no problem multitasking, covering multiple topics at once. Though I can understand someone with severe cognitive deficits might not be able to do that.

                      And if you hadn’t said that, or variants of that, 25 times THEN IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO SHIFT THE TOPIC TO BEING ALL ABOUT ME your nonsense might have worked.

                      But I can’t blame you for quickly changing the subject. It only took me 1 post to make a complete fool of you on your chosen topic about how you claim the whole ocean has turned to acid.

                      You must not get out much, at least not to the beach, eh?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “REAL WORLD temperatures…still are falling behind the lowest predictions,”

                      False.

                      https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/689889733737082880

                    • Naturally you would use the dated evidence of another person who’s full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      But even there you can see that reality, even the fraudulently adjusted reality, is beginning to lag predictions.

                      Let’s use the most current and while it also includes some questionable ‘adjustments”, arguably the more accurate:

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/fig_tab/nclimate2938_F1.html

                      You will note that once Jones retired and stopped “adjusting” HadCRUT it quickly fell below the lowest predictions. So did NOAA and GISTEMP – until they were fraudulently adjusted back into the very lower range of predictions, still well below the CMIP-5 line though.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Now, well before humans even evolved, the Earth reached temperatures that were not only what we enjoy today, but actually significantly warmer.”

                      Correct.

                      The big question isn’t about the temperature, it about the ability of species — including humans — to adapt to the very high rate of climate change now taking place.

                    • Robert

                      And, unfortunately, now we are at adaption ….

                    • DavidAppell

                      Yes, we are. I see more and more articles about that lately…. I hope we don’t screw that up as badly as we’ve screwed up mitigation.

                    • Robert

                      Well, ….. politics….

                    • Ah there you go with the “high rates of change” nonsense. Utter rubbish, outright lies.

                      The current rates of change are NOTHING compared to what has happened in the past.

                      Though we might want to buckle our safety belts… there does seem to be an uptick in severe earthquakes perhaps… or at least I heard some rumblings from those who mind such things. There is evidence that increased tectonic activity could be in our future and that would not be a good thing. I’m not making a prediction, mind you, just speculating.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically.”

                      The vast, vast majority of those 9,996 fans are impervious to infrared radiation. They don’t even notice it.

                      Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of mulitiple targets on the side of a barn.

                      On the barn are N targets, each of area A.

                      Does the probability of your hitting a target depend only on N?

                      No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.

                      It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering the product N*A.

                      And CO2 has a large A for the infrared light emitted by the Earth and atmosphere.

                    • I doubt you understand the invalidity of your argument, but exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents. Why don’t you list them.

                      As usual, you make a weak argument without any actual supporting evidence, mostly hand waving. You haven’t changed.

                      Are you claiming CO2 is significantly bigger than H2O? If so, cite your detailed evidence for that argument.

                      I suspect you’re actually trying to make a completely different argument and don’t even realize it, but we shall see. Because the idea that CO2 is significantly bigger than ANY other atmospheric constituent, such that it would make up for the fact it’s presence is next to nothing in the atmosphere, is ridiculous.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “I doubt you understand the invalidity of your argument, but exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents.”

                      In the IR spectrum, A peaks at about 10,000 m2/kg.

                    • Since you clearly couldn’t comprehend my question, let me type it again:

                      Exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents.

                      Claiming that it peaks at about 10,000 square meters per kilogram – are you suggesting that is in any way an answer to my question? Are you claiming there’s 1 kilogram of CO2 in every 10,000 square meters of atmosphere?

                      Sounds like you believe the atmosphere is two dimensional…

                      Guess again.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I told you, one issue at a time. We’re currently discussing ocean acidity. When we agree on that science we can move on.

                    • Funny, you didn’t stay on topic for very long. In fact it was you who brought up ozone, you who brought up 10,000 m2/kg of CO2, you who brought up a bunch of other topics in a bunch of other posts and you who switched to trying to make it all about me right after promising, PROMISING, at least 10 times we were only going to talk about acid – are you taking some? That would explain your behavior, at least.

                    • Well, since you’re apparently NEVER going to admit that the ocean isn’t turning to acid, and still claiming that insufficient measurements of only surface waters are the last word, we’re not going to agree since the ocean isn’t turning to acid and insufficient measurements of the surface aren’t even enough to accurately state what’s happening there, let alone in the rest of the ocean.

                      And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’ve already said: the ocean is acidifying — 30% since pre-industrial times.

                      Whether its pH is 7 is irrelevant. It’s the change from normal acidification that matters.

                    • This is EXACTLY why people like me throw up our hands and just wonder how someone can be so ignorant of reality.

                      The higher the pH, the more scarce the negative ions – in fact there’s a DEFICIT, which is why the pH is ALKALINE. You don’t seem to understand basic chemistry! The 30% is only 30% because it takes such a little change to seem, when you deliberately express it in the most deceiving way, like more than it really is. You’re talking about a change of 0.11 in 150 years or so. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about that.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Marcel: I said the ocean is ACIDIFYING, not, dummy, that the ocean is acid.

                      Every solution has an acidity — even very basic solutions have an acidity.

                      When that acidify increases, the solution is “acidifying.”

                      If you don’t know this, you are a scientific ignoramous.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.”

                      Dumb, Marcel Cook. Organisms adapted to pre-industrial acidification levels, and don’t give a toss how how you classify the ocean’s acidification.

                    • Continuing to claim I’m Marcel Cook makes you look really silly – it’s just one more thing you’re 100% wrong about.

                      Ocean pH is not and has never been static. Organisms exist and adapt to a range of pH values – the surface/regional pH of the water changes daily, also annually. The geologic record is crammed full of organisms that failed to adapt and left behind only traces, no descendants. You act as if there is something unusual about extinction when it is the rule, not the exception.

                      Why are you so terrified of change? What is it about change that makes you so obviously numb with fear?

                      From a survey of the organisms adversely affected by pH it would seem that many of them are organisms that were introduced and were in areas they did not naturally colonize. One such article that comes immediately to mind talked about the adverse affects of the NORMAL, NATURAL pH in an area where fish that were not normally found there were brought in to be farmed for human consumption.

                      Also, what is the geologic history of the white cliffs of Dover? of the subsoils of Florida prone to the formation of sink holes?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why did you plagarize Marcel Cook?

                      Why are you afraid to simply state who you are?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Are you claiming there’s 1 kilogram of CO2 in every 10,000 square meters of atmosphere?”

                      Don’t be an idiot, or you will be treated like one.

                      Now, about acidity…..

                    • You’re the one who made the claim. And I note the claim you made had NOTHING TO DO ABOUT ACIDITY.

                      But again, no, your attempt to claim the oceans are turning into acid is a huge lie. They are not. They’re becoming LESS REACTIVE. Don’t you know how the pH scale works? What number represents the strongest acid, what number represents the strongest alkaline and what number represents neutral? I think you do. I think you’re just PRETENDING to be stupid.

                      But I’ve been wrong before!

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I too thought DA was maybe just pretending, but he has proved I was wrong.

                      Arrogant ignorance is required to argue there is science that supports belief in anthropogenic climate change.

                    • This is the second time I’ve run across him preaching the Gospel according to the church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism (most people don’t bother to try to work out the acronym) and he’s making even less sense this time around.

                      Indeed only the willfully ignorant could possibly claim that humans have usurped the orders of magnitude greater natural forces that dominate weather, temperature and climate.

                      Do humans have some influence?

                      What living thing does not have some influence on it’s environment?

                      The short answer is none.

                      So while I am all for finding ways to reduce any NEGATIVE effects we have on the environment, this senseless war against CO2 is sheer insanity – because the science PROVES that increasing CO2 is GOOD for the biosphere (see links below) and history proves that the warm wet times are GOOD for the human species as well as the biosphere.

                      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

                      http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2001/09/greening-in-the-northern-hemisphere.html

                      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-carbon-dioxide-desert-greening-01209.html

                      http://principia-scientific.org/tag/us-geophysical-research-letters/
                      A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

                      Also, the evidence is UNDENIABLE that there is no direct link between surface warming and CO2 levels in the direction they claim:

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

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

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

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

                    • There are a series of poorly thought out, unsupported assumptions which, if foolishly accepted without engaging critical thinking at any point or demanding actual evidence, do lead one to the false conclusions we’re discussing.

                      Of course this is accomplished by substituting emotion for logical, critical thinking.

                      Emotion bypasses the sensible brain and engages the knee-jerk brain.

                    • It is true that you can speak of pH decreases from any point on the scale as “acidification” and in fact that is often done BY THOSE WHO DO SO WHILE KEEPING THINGS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE.

                      The important issue, which David Appell refuses to even discuss, is that this “increase in acidity” was miniscule – it matters WHERE on the scale we are at any given moment. Plus it has the result that the waters affected by it become LESS REACTIVE while his whole goal and that of his ilk is to make people fear the false belief that the water is becoming MORE REACTIVE as ACID is thought of as something dangerous that will burn and even dissolve you. Finally, we have not done enough measurements often enough to support a claim the oceans (as a whole) are actually becoming more acidic.

                      These arguments he and his ilk use are chosen both carefully and deliberately to cause an emotional reaction that leads the target audience to a false conclusion – a most despicable form of misdirection I find is common among every single aspect of the typical liberal/progressive/Democrat, on every current issue.

                      Once there were honest, good Democrats, but I think they all died. Or changed party affiliation. Or perhaps were driven into hiding due to the shame and guilt any thinking person would feel when associating with today’s Democrats. Do you know any honest, good Democrats?

                    • Ah there it is, you’re famous “10,000 m2/kg” statement, which you didn’t back up with… anything. And you accuse ME of stealing things. By the way, you’re talking about acid here? The oceans turning to acid?

                      I didn’t think so.

                      LIAR!

                    • DavidAppell

                      10^4 m2/kg is well known. Read any climate textbook, like Pierrehumbert’s.

                    • Pierrehumbert is a climate clown (to “cut and past” a phrase from him):

                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/raypierhumbert1.jpg?w=500&h=632

                      I can see why he sticks to ‘science’, though he’s as bad at that as he is at this:

                      https://youtu.be/O3LZxsF9WQc

                    • DavidAppell

                      Calling him names is just a sign you have no better science.

                      You are jealous, Marcel Cook.

                    • Aha… so you called me a coward… because you have no better science?

                      Now I know you insisted, about 30 times, that you were only going to discuss your ridiculous notion that the oceans are turning to acid.

                      Just how much did their pH SUPPOSEDLY change, over what amount of time, based on what global sampling again?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You’re a coward because you are afraid to post under your real name, insulting me and others while you hide behind your mommy’s skirt. It’s that simple.

                    • Childish, inept, impotent taunts from a would-be bully who can’t answer simple questions because doing so would entail admitting he’s completely wrong about weather, climate and temperature.

                      Keep proving you’re an immature, ignorant idiot. You haven’t changed and probably never will.

                    • DavidAppell

                      BTW, if you think Pierrehumbert’s 10,000 m2/kg is junk, what is your value for the maximum absorption rate of CO2 in the infrared? And prove it.

                    • Interesting – I see you haven’t changed a bit. Making false allegations about what I posted, constructing straw men based on your own twisted thoughts and also outright lying:

                      Pierrehumbert’s 10,000 m2/kg is junk

                      You’re the only one who suggested that. I did ask you a question about it – and your response was you were ONLY going to talk about how you believe the ocean is turning into acid when in fact it’s becoming LESS REACTIVE, but only very slightly so.

                      You remember – I posted you several questions, you made a bunch of tangental responses without actually responding to my questions or saying anything of even slight intelligence, then you said you were ONLY going to talk about how you believe the oceans are turning into acid. Said that around 20 times, didn’t you? Something like that?

                      And here you are spouting straw men, absolute lies . The only one of us who said his number is junk IS YOU.

                      As for your question, since I never set up a lab test of CO2 (or any other gas), your question is ridiculous since I don’t have a personal value for the “maximum absorption rate of CO2” and as worded your question doesn’t reallky make any sense whatsoever as it suggests you think of CO2 as a sponge or paper towel that continually sops up carbon dioxide.

                      That’s not how it works.

                      Go back to Physics 101 and start over.

                      Now about your theory that the oceans are turning into acid…

                    • I read science fiction, not science fraud. While his book has some limited value, that value is overwhelmed by his nonsensical notion that humans have somehow overpowered the natural forces that still clearly control our weather, temperature and climate, as admitted by the IPCC and Michael Mann (among others):

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

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

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

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

                      How can CO2 be the dominant player when the rate of warming was LOWER during the time atmospheric CO2 was HIGHER?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “What you are describing is not “global warming” – what you are describing is what has been misnamed the “greenhouse effect””

                      The warming we’re seeing is due to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

                    • You have not provided any evidence that this effect is ‘enhanced’ in any way. Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Earth has not been warmer, has not warmed faster, in the past. Because it has been warmer, it has warmed faster.

                      Climate change is normal, natural, INEVITABLE. Thinking humans are a primary driver of climate change trends is a form of narcissism.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You have not provided any evidence that this effect is ‘enhanced’ in any way.”

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

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

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

                    • None of these links has any proof that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. They also don’t claim the magnitude of change in downwelling radiation that your ridiculous theories do. Finally, they don’t prove the claimed forcing values are correct. In the end they CLAIM to have measured a slight increase in downwelling IR which they attribute to CO2. But they also admit:

                      Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2. The seasonal and annual trends in calculated clear-sky spectra at SGP (Fig. 2a) and NSA (Fig. 2d) are dominated by changes in the atmospheric thermodynamic state and are of opposite sign depending on the season.

                      Among other things.

                      One reference (the oldest) claims a statistically significant result at a level that is three times what the most recent work claims exists. The more recent work admits that they are maximizing their result by using only clear sky conditions. AGW catastrophe scenarios depend on higher temperatures causing more evaporation and warmer air to carry more water vapor, which is to do the bulk of the actual warming (the ‘amplification’) yet the paper talks about how the CO2 effect is greatest when there are no clouds. Clear sky conditions. So they are basically admitting to the strong negative feedback present as a built-in feature of our atmosphere.

                      And, as usual, you provided a link that refers to the same thing as your other link to make it look like you had more studies than you really do. The “newscenter” link is a repeat of what is at the “nature” link.

                      In conclusion, I will repeat that they CLAIM that, after much hand waving, they’ve detected a very slight increase in downwelling IR that they ATTRIBUTE to CO2. And I’m not saying they’re incorrect, mind you, perhaps they did. There might be a statistically insignificant amount of increased downward IR there, perhaps. Because CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a gas that absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation, as I’ve always agreed. But they provide no proof, nor have you, that the CO2 that is increasing has anything to do with humans. Only speculation to that effect.

                      And even if, in the end, you are able to establish a clear link between humans and any major fraction of the CO2 trend, what do you expect us to do?

                      Stop breathing?

                      You go first. After a year of no breathing get back to us and let us know how it worked out for you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “None of these links has any proof that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.”

                      Prove it then. You can’t, Marcel.

                    • Prove WHAT?

                      That YOUR SOURCES said,

                      “Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2.”

                      That’s your source. Go back and read it from YOUR SOURCE if you don’t believe it. It CLEARLY STATES that CO2 is NOT the major player you & your deluded ilk claim it to be!

                      And since I’m not the one demanding we make foolish, radical, disastrous, dangerous policy changes BASED ON FRAUD I don’t have to prove ANYTHING.

                      But I still just did.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Earth has not been warmer, has not warmed faster, in the past.”

                      Irrelevant.

                    • What a cop out! Wrong! Your theory depends on the oft-repeated FALSE claim that it’s not been warmer and can’t warm as fast. Those are both lies.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Bodhisattva = Marcel Cook.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Climate change is normal, natural, INEVITABLE.”

                      Then simply provide the evidence that natural factors account for modern warming……

                    • Actually you’re the one saying humans are responsible so it’s up to YOU to prove it. I’m not the one saying we need to make rash, irrational and potentially deadly changes based on lies and nonsense, you are, so the burden of the proof is on you.

                      As for proof that other factors are still in control, not CO2, without even getting to the question of what is behind the increase in CO2:

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

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

                      As for where all that CO2 is coming from:

                      http://earthsky.org/earth/scientists-discover-vast-methane-plumes-escaping-from-arctic-seafloor

                      http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

                      http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2012/10/fieldwork3.html

                      I hope you’re at least capable of understanding how this might be involved in the increase of CO2 – but we shall see!

                      Also how it’s not just humans who are releasing underground carbon into the atmosphere.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Thinking humans are a primary driver of climate change trends is a form of narcissism.”

                      That is what the science shows.

                      And in all your ranting, you have yet to prove otherwise.

                    • Funny, I’m the only one who’s actually presented peer-reviewed science that disproves your ridiculous assertions.

                      If there was science supporting your ridiculous assertions, why haven’t you presented any? Instead you shotgun posted about 25 (or more) different posts, no science included, then insisted you would only talk about how the oceans are turning into acid, then started talking about who I am and where I got a particular quote from.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Yes, but what is the “greenhouse effect”?

                      Do I understand correctly that your definition requires that radiation from colder atmosphere above warms warmer atmosphere or surface below?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      When doen’t that happen?

                    • DavidAppell

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      When doesn’t that happen?

                    • The warming we’re seeing is what is normal and natural for any interglacial period or for any of the many periods that fall between periods of significant cooling such as the Little Ice Age and whatever the next one will be called when it arrives. Which, according to some solar scientists, could be very soon. If they’re right you’d better PRAY that humans are indeed causing warming.

                      Personally it’s clear to me that you have to be INSANE to think that the Earth has reached anything like optimum temperature. There’s too much evidence that warming and more CO2 are causing much more good than harm:

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

                      The simple fact is we’ve known about this before you screaming lunatics started with your lies about a mass extinction – just the opposite is happening – the biosphere is THRIVING due to increased temperatures and more CO2 in the air:

                      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

                    • DavidAppell

                      Re: your Nature paper.

                      So what?

                      Before this 15-yr period, temperature trends were, for several years, ABOVE expectations.

                      The most important fact is that since about 1990, the 30-yr trend in surface temperatures has been a consistent 0.15-0.20 C/decade.

                    • Re: Your juvenile, irrational need to ignore and deny any evidence that does not fit what you prefer to believe, despite copious evidence it’s not only wrong, but ludicrously so:

                      Wrong. The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed, proving beyond doubt or discussion that CO2 is not the “master control” and in fact it’s conclusive evidence that natural forces still dominate, as we’ve been patiently explaining to you & your ilk from the start.

                      Now I’ve dealt with you before and it seems you still are unable to provide a single shred of convincing evidence to any of the following:

                      1) You CAN prove that there is a human CO2 signature in the atmosphere, but you CANNOT prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. If you have any compelling evidence that PROVES human CO2 production has somehow usurped the natural forces that control atmospheric trends, please present it. We will take your failure to do so as an admission you have no such evidence.

                      2) You CAN prove that CO2 has been increasing but you CANNOT prove, and there is evidence to the contrary in fact, that CO2 has never been higher. If you can produce evidence that atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been higher, please do. We will take your failure to do so as an admission you have no such evidence.

                      3) You CAN prove that there has been SOME correlation between higher temperatures and higher CO2 but you CANNOT prove that it’s never been cold, or colder, during a period of high atmospheric CO2 and indeed that is the case. Now if you can produce evidence that there’s NEVER been a time when CO2 was higher that it was this cold or colder, please do – because again I’ve seen evidence to the contrary but I’m sure you will just dismiss it with your refusal to accept anything contrary to what you choose to believe. We will take your failure to present evidence that it has never been this cool or cooler during a time of higher atmospheric CO2 as an admission you have no such evidence.

                      4) Even some of those who are like you, who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism admit that the evidence CLEARLY shows that temperature rises FIRST then CO2 starts to rise. Now try to stick to the argument here – which is that the current atmospheric rise in CO2 can be shown to be just another example of this – and I can even show you WHERE the increase is coming from, but again you will just dismiss it as something you simply refuse to believe. In any case, if you do not provide clear and compelling evidence that the CO2 increase was not an EFFECT then we will consider, again, that you have none and you’re wrong about that, too.

                      5) You CAN prove that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas which produces most of it’s effect early on but, since it’s influence is a logarithmic function, not a linear one, it’s effects quickly fade to relative insignificance. Now if you think you have evidence that the relationship between CO2 is a linear one and that a rise in temperature will track a rise in atmospheric CO2 as a direct, linear function, please present it. Again, failure to do so will convince us you have no such evidence.

                      6) in your reply, above, you offered the weak argument that the long term trend in surface temperature has been a consistent 0.15-0.20 C/decade, and I’ll double down on you by pointing out that the long term trend since the mini ice age has been a pretty solid warming trend. You don’t get to move the goal posts. I’ve provided PROOF that warmer is better, that all the scare mongering you and your ilk are doing is nonsense, more CO2 and warmer temperatures are GOOD for the biosphere, GOOD for humans, GOOD for the planet. My position is that the current temperature of the Earth is NOT optimum.

                      But if you can provide evidence that the Earth has NEVER warmed before at a rate of 015 – 0.20 C/decade then perhaps we can explore that issue further. I know no such evidence exists because the Earth HAS warmed at faster rates than that, normally and naturally, and the fact is that rate is questionable because it did not exist as such until Jones, Hansen and their ilk corrupted the historic temperature datasets to create it and in doing so set climate science back at least 100 years, if not more.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed….”

                      Completely, utterly wrong:

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “”The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed….”

                      Completely, utterly wrong:Except for every time throughout history where temperature plummeted when CO2 peeked.

                      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3…”

                      It’s simply amazing the sorts of stuff NOAA will come up with to support the cause. In this case, ignore that the satellite is falling slightly as it orbits, and that the reported resolution is an order of magnitude more precise than the accuracy of the measurement, then adjust the temperature to match the raw sea level data, et voila!, we have Ocean warming.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I think I know why you are avoiding this question.

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

                      you answered “not necessarily.”

                      When doesn’t that happen?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Your link is 404. Brilliant.

                    • Rubbish. Say, didn’t you say you were only going to talk about how you were convinced the world’s oceans were turning to acid when they’re actually becoming LESS reactive? When the pH is moving towards NEUTRAL?

                      In any case, you said you were going to ignore any posts that didn’t have to do with that single topic so surely you will keep your word and NOT respond to this one!

                      In any case, good old KARL at NOAA decided that some cherry picking and falsification (or at least deliberate misrepersentation) of data was in order and decided he was just the guy to do it. Since the ARGO floats were quickly disproving the claims that the “missing heat” was hiding in the oceans, the data from that program (and appaerntly other programs) was “adjusted”. There’s even a roundabout mention of the “adjustment” on the page you referenced above.

                      Basically what KARL and his co-consiprators are trying to claim is that the monster (missing heat) is hiding under the bed (somewhere in the oceans of the world) and is going to jump out and eat us all at some point (cause that runaway global warming you folks have been insisting should have already been here several times).

                      However, the IPCC and a group of apparently repentant former co-consiprators both say you’re wrong, and so is NOAA’s fraudulent attempt to save theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism:

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

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

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

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

                      Now when I told you I expected you to respond with peer-reviewed, published science that supports your ridiculous views, I knew you most likely wouldn’t, because every such work is full of caveats, attributions, escape hatches, etc.

                      I am surprised that you still haven’t provided a single link to a single peer-reviewed, published work of any recent vintage.

                      Now keep your word and ignore this post.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed”

                      Wrong:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9645d04cf9caea1ca1fc9146f3511dd7c91112179643c1c9cfc53aa9a0a5c308.jpg

                    • Sorry, both the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say your propaganda from NOAA is wrong, basically they cherry picked your end points and used fraudulently adjusted data for that anyway.

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

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

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

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

                      The latter paper was written as a direct rebuttal to KARL at NOAA, who was likely at least somewhat responsible for that propaganda piece you offered. Take his adjustments out of the data and a different picture emerges.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “…you CANNOT prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.”

                      Trivial, and known for a long time, via isotopic analysis.

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

                    • Incorrect. Evidence that we have burned fossil fuels does not prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

                      And a blog written by hacks is not peer reviewed science.

                      Uber-FAIL, as expected. The first paragraph on your reference makes the ridiculous, false claim that this idea is “settled science”. Yeah, just like the Earth is flat and is the center of the entire universe, with everything else revolving around it. Also examples of “settled science”.

                      Other than identifying yourself as a ‘flat Earth’ believer, you have failed to present any valid evidence that humans are the cause of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

                      Your “simple accounting approach” fails, since all we have to do is look at the derivatives of the increase and that logic fails quickly:

                      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

                      What did we do differently in 2012, 2010, 2005, 2002 and 1998 that accounts for those measured spikes?

                      And how do you account for 1962, 1964, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1991, 1992 and 1999?
                      How is it that the increase in atmospheric CO2 varies so much when human CO2 output does not vary in a corresponding way? When human CO2 output goes the OPPOSITE way in some of those years?

                      I told you that if you did not present actual science your answer would be considered a fail and so far EVERY ONE OF YOUR MANY ANSWERS ARE FAILS!

                    • Here is another example of the ridiculous logic of your chosen reference:

                      The oceans are the Earth’s largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2 increase were “natural”, it would likely be coming from the oceans. But we know the CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans, because the pH of the oceans is dropping (a.k.a. ocean acidification).

                      First of all, the pH of the ocean is moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE, which you and your ilk portray in the worst terms possible – by suggesting to the uneducated that the oceans are turning to acid when in fact they’re becoming LESS REACTIVE, not more.

                      Also the claim the increase in CO2 is not coming from the oceans can be easily falsified by pointing out that cold, deep, CARBON RICH waters are welling up and increasing the carbon content of surface waters. If the surface temperature were constant, i.e. if we were not still in the process of recovering from the last minor (and for that matter major) glaciation, this would STILL create an imbalance and would still result in an uptick of carbon leaving the oceans for the atmosphere. However, we ARE experiencing the normal, natural warming that occurs between major or minor glacial periods and so this is warming the water and, if you bother to check Henry’s Law, you will see this also tends to produce an outgassing of CO2 into the atmosphere from the warming ocean.

                      So it looks like you helped prove me right, actually.

                      THANKS!

                    • DavidAppell

                      “First of all, the pH of the ocean is moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE,”

                      The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% since the preindustrial era. Yes?

                      (This has been your one comment for this exchange. Any more and the conversation is too diluted.)

                    • The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% since the preindustrial era.

                      No.

                      A limited group of samples has been taken and likely cherry picked. You haven’t even produced anything but your say so to support that claim. No proper measurement of the entire ocean, or a reasonable subset of the entire ocean, has been made that would support such a claim. At best one might assert that a very limited sampling of the ocean has been done and the data manipulated to justify such a claim, but it’s validity is questionable at best.

                      No more talking points. These are THE FACTS:

                      The pH of the ocean has gone DOWN, it has moved TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.

                      The ocean is not turning to acid. And you know it.

                      It is moving towards NEUTRAL. Furthermore the change has been miniscule. Of course you’re going to represent it in the scariest terms you can. Tell me what the actual prior pH allegedly was and what the current pH allegedly is, if you can. These figures are readily available. Then provide the peer-reviewed work that you used as your source.

                      I suspect you’re spouting propaganda and talking points, trying to sound intelligent, again.

                      You’re failing.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The pH of the ocean has gone DOWN, it has moved TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.”

                      A decreasing pH = an increased acidity.

                      Just as I said. Details here:

                      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html

                    • You’re being disingenuous again. The pH is ALKALINE, becoming slightly LESS ALKALINE, moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE.

                      You’re playing semantic games, as you always do. Trying your best to make something that is normal, natural and not scary be as terrifying as possible to justify your nonsensical world view.

                      Once the pH level passes 7.0 we can talk about acidity. But right now you’re being deliberately disingenuous because we both know the SURFACE WATERS, not the whole ocean, and in fact only the small areas of the surface that were measured, have yielded readings that SUGGEST the waters IN THOSE AREAS have become slightly less alkaline by 0.11 units over the past 250 years or so.

                      You are good at leaving out the most important parts of reality, the ones that reveal you as a fraud and a liar. How did you become so good at doing that?

                    • Yeah, you said that, right after you made a bunch of other nonsense comments that you hoped I would just overlook, I guess. No, the ocean is not 30% more acid. At best, if you insist on using a percentage to try to make the change look drastic, the very few areas sampled, only surface water by the way, a very limited number of surface samples, indicate the surface waters in those areas, at those times, have become 0.11 pH units less alkaline over a 250 year or so period. When you approach neutral and wish to mislead you can express it as a percentage, but I find admitting the change is a paltry 0.11 pH units over 250 years or so is a more honest, accurate and understandable way of expressing it. Unless your intent is to deceive and produce unnecessary, irrational fear in a deliberately irresponsible manner.

                      Oh, wait, that IS your intent!

                    • waxliberty

                      Are you saying you reject the direct evidence that outgoing longwave radiation, as observed from earth’s orbit, is affected (reduced) by enhanced greenhouse?

                      http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262

                      Or do you reject the first law of thermodynamics, application of which here means that if less energy is escaping into space then it is being retained in the climate system, i.e. warming?

                      It must be one of the two…

                    • Voodude

                      Dano2:

                    • And his response was to give you a basic physics lesson – and your response was trollish personal attacks.

                      You lose.

                    • Dano2

                      His drivel had nothing to do with the topic. Learn something about the topic so you don’t embarrass yourself.

                      best,

                      D

                    • You are just a troll, and not a very good one. Take your own advice.

                    • Dano2

                      Let us know when you learn something about the topic to understand your error and, in so doing, avoid future embarrassment.

                      TIA

                      Best,

                      D

                    • BIOYA!

                      TTTH!

                      TTFN!

                    • Goldminer

                      Knowledge about how the SUN drives our climate, no matter if we have an atmosphere or not. Our liveable climate is the result of having an atmosphere, water, Orbit, rotation and geomagnetic fields at the poles. Or does CO2 drives all of these.

                    • Dano2

                      CO2 is a GHG, thanks, it traps some of the sun’s energy, warming the planet.

                      /basic

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Goldminer

                      CO2 drives the SUN, thanks I’m a believer not a Nazi.

                    • Dano2

                      Weird.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Actually his remark was a review of well known physical principles – yours are the ones that continuously indicate an utter lack of knowledge or education.

                    • Dano2

                      Learn something about the topic so you don’t embarrass yourself.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Take your own advice.

                      Start here:

                      See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

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

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

                      So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

                      Then go here:

                      But let’s compare the claims of the POLITICAL IPCC with the facts presented by the NIPCC:

                      IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

                      NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

                      NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

                      IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

                      NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

                      NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

                      IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

                      NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

                      NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

                      IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

                      NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

                      NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

                      IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

                      NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

                      IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

                      SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

                    • Dano2

                      NIPCC! Fossil fuel lobbying firm!

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      Best,

                      D

                    • As usual, you engage in character attacks and fail to address any of the VALID points.

                      Were it possible for ‘the devil’ to tell the truth, if she were to do so, you would probably ignore it and just attack her character instead!

                      BIOYOA

                      TTTH

                      TTFN!

                    • Dano2

                      “Your” “argument” is based on suggestions from a fossil fuel lobbying firm. Aren’t you precious?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Thanks for confirming you are claiming the IPCC is a fossil fuel firm.

                      I added to the IPCC claim another series of their claims and rebuttals by an opposing group. If you had anything to disprove the claims of the opposing group I’m sure you would have provided it.

                      I make no claim concerning the nature or validity of either group, simply note that they had produced a good series of claims and counter claims.

                      Your inability to comment on either is noted and telling!

                    • Dano2

                      Your comedy skit is certainly original, that’s for sure.

                      Smart people know that if they have a question about the science, they go to the science, not a fossil fuel lobbying firm.

                      BTW, since you are clearly a smartie and know sooooo much about…physical properties and so must…”study” the science, how many papers have come out since the FAR (the report you quoted) on the hiatus?

                      Just answer with a number. The number of papers since the report. On the hiatus. Just a number please.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Thank you for once again proving how clueless you are.

                      FAR is the IPCC FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT from decades ago. I haven’t bothered to count the number of reports that came out since the first IPCC report, and neither have you.

                      I quoted the FIFTH report, the 5AR, not the FAR.

                      And it doesn’t matter how many FALSE conclusions have been reached since any point in time, they’re still false!

                    • Dano2

                      That doesn’t work on me lad.

                      What is the number.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • I know it won’t work on you – narcissists rarely admit they made any mistake at all.

                      The number is 867-5309.

                    • Dano2

                      Not brave enough to admit it can’t speak to the literature regarding the hiatus.

                      Why are denialists almost always cowards?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Actually, I’m the only one who HAS provided ANY reference on the alleged hiatus. You presented nothing but trollish bluster and the same is true of all your equally deluded ilk.

                      See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

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

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

                      So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

                      I showed you mine. Now it’s your turn to show me yours.

                      What’s the matter Col. Sanders?

                      CHICKEN?

                    • Dano2

                      Still not speaking to the latest literature on the hiatus, got it.

                      As It refutes you, I’d do anything to avoid mentioning it too.

                      Best,

                      D

              • DavidAppell

                Brin: CO2’s effect on heat is different in the atmosphere. There, it absorbs the infrared radiation that is given off by the Earth. It quickly reemits it, and since the orientation of a CO2 molecule in the atmo is random, some of that re-emission goes downward. That warms the surface.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  A minor gas?

                  • DavidAppell

                    What do you mean by “minor?”
                    Please be quantative.

                  • DavidAppell

                    Speaking of minor gases, do you know what the concentration of ozone is in the ozone layer?

                    5 ppmv.

                    Do you know what you’d be if it wasn’t there?

                    Dead.

                  • DavidAppell

                    How is CO2 a “minor” gas?

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      CO2 = 0.04% now.

                    • Dano2

                      Congratulations! You’ve just proven medicine is not effective and pHrma is a big scam.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • waxliberty

                      I like this video to address this idea that CO2 is too small to have the proposed effect, watch from about 3:20…

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&feature=kp

                    • Steve Davidson

                      In the video, the last guy that said that CO2 takes up 1/10,000th more of earth’s atmosphere than it did before the industrial revolution is closest to being correct.

                      There is no guesswork involved. It doesn’t come from some slipshod climate models, like CMIP5. It’s a simple straightforward calculation. There was 280ppm of CO2 in the air before the industrial revolution. There is 400ppm today. That’s a 120ppm increase. The correct answer is 1.2/10,000ths.

                      The reason that the small increase in CO2 hasn’t had the same impact on temperature rise as it does on plant growth is probably because plants are a lot more sensitive to CO2 than is temperature.

                    • waxliberty

                      Interesting that you seem genuinely to have missed the point of the clip entirely.

                      “There is no guesswork involved… It’s a simple straightforward calculation”

                      And even more straightforward is the calculation of how many coins I am holding in my hand. What relationship does the ease of measurement have with the significance of the observation?

                      “The reason that the small increase in CO2 hasn’t had the same impact on temperature”

                      You appear to be making exactly the fallacious argument the video clip is parodying – “CO2 growth is small, therefore effect on temperature is small.”

                      In reality, the greenhouse effect runs on trace elements, yet is responsible for keeping the earth a full 33K warmer than it would otherwise be, so physics acknowledges at the outset that trace elements can have outsized impact. The gaps coming out of outgoing longwave are directly observed. The warming of the system is directly observed. Increased humidity as predicted – and therefore the positive water vapor feedback – are all directly observed. Your comment is blithely at odds with the view endorsed by literally every national academy of science in the world. Does your principle #4 about supporting claims with evidence apply to your own claims?

                    • Steve Davidson

                      See previous remarks about getting in the last word.

                    • waxliberty

                      The continuing incredible lack of self-awareness is at least amusing. I think we can conclude that you are not particularly serious and let it go.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Unfortunately, your statement “In reality, the greenhouse effect runs on trace elements, yet is responsible for keeping the earth a full 33K warmer than it would otherwise be, so physics acknowledges at the outset that trace elements can have outsized impact.” is garbage, and at the heart of your (mis)understanding.

                    • waxliberty

                      Will pick up your greenhouse denial arguments in the other subthread…

                    • VooDude

                      Did you know that the full infrared spectrum of the earth’s long-wave radiation of heat, into space, had never been observed by satellites? NASA says, “Hey, this will be the FIRST…”

                      The far infrared includes 50% of the Earth’s infrared energy emitted to space and contains most of the Earth’s water vapor greenhouse effect …As a result, this spectral region dominates the physics of the water vapour feedback in climate but has yet to be observed from space to verify climate model simulations of these processes.”

                      Huh. Never been done before. 50% … So, exactly, how certain are those climate scientists?

                      ”The effect of clouds in the far infrared also remains unobserved in high-resolution spectra, and radiative transfer model discrepancies have been identified in the limited number of far-infrared measurements that have been made in the presence of clouds (Cox et al. 2010).”

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

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

                    • waxliberty

                      I’m sure it seems very mysterious. Far infrared is observed from the ground though, where you see “measurements agree with radiative transfer model calculations to within their combined uncertainties” (e.g. here), and of course we directly measure that the water vapor is there (humidity) so it’s not like water vapor feedback is a mystery – as you’re well aware it’s extremely well observed.

                      But okay, it sounds like today’s desperate hope is that although we measure the WV and see the downwelling component, maybe that *doesn’t* mean there is a corresponding outgoing gap, maybe WV molecules aren’t absorbing IR as chemistry says they must, maybe the downwelling is a mirage and the energy is actually escaping, and therefore no water vapor feedback and it’s all been a hoax just like you always said!

                      Would you like to bet on whether Clarreo will confirm radiative transfer theory and the water vapor feedback or (finally!) overthrow it? I’ll bet $100,000 that it largely confirms it – no major revisions to AGW theory as a result of the measurements. Are you in, VooDude, or just clutching at straws?

                      Us usual, you are interpreting scientific efforts to close clearly acknowledged uncertainty (and narrow the wide range for climate sensitivity estimate) as evidence that scientists have been *hiding* uncertainty and therefore we can reject their conclusions. This is just another version of the endless game of you coming up with logically invalid reasons for believing what you want to believe. Year after year after year.

                      Not like the good old days, is it, when there was still hope there wasn’t actually any of that warming they predicted, it was all urban heat islands. Or even the good old days when there was still a “pause” and we were all sure the great global cooling was finally kicking in. Even in extreme rejection of evidence, it’s been one long painful road of reality and physics letting you down. God bless your persistence I suppose.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The video is an idiotic piece of crap. By what means do you think CO2 affects atmospheric temperature? Can you show any demonstration or cite any peer reviewed paper that proves the assertion that it does?

                    • waxliberty

                      Ah, one of you. We need to name these classes of contrarians. You’re a “causal chains are not valid science” sort of belligerent. A bit sloppy in wording for your class – there are more evasive ways to state this.

                      Yes, Dave, CO2 is directly measured to increase downwelling infrared heating the surface (ocean and land), e.g. Feldman et al 2015, “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

                      “Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2… The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) … These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”

                    • BigWaveDave

                      There is no causal chain between CO2 and temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. There is no definition of a greenhouse gas that doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics. Believers in the GHG myth don’t even consider diurnal heating.

                    • waxliberty

                      Ah whoops, miscategorized you. You’re “imaginary second law” greenhouse denier class. That’s pretty fringe Dave. Do you also reject the heat retaining properties of blankets as a violation of the 2nd, or you think cooler blankets can literally heat a warmer body?

                      “The only supporting evidence offered by carbophobes is adjusted readings from a handful of thermometers.”

                      Not very knowledgeable, are you?

                      “Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures show no CO2 GHG effect”

                      Is that so? They do on the face of them:

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/trend/offset:0.2/plot/rss/trend/offset:-0.2

                      Since you see something different, surely you’ve published your analysis, so we can all inspect the rigorous logic you’ve used in coming to your conclusion?

                      Something no doubt that roundly debunks papers like this, I’m sure:

                      Lewandowsky et al 2015 The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science

                      “There have been 6 occasions since 1970 when a 15-year trend would have failed to reach significance… Any argument about a “pause”, “hiatus”, or “stoppage” could have been made with equal justification (or lack thereof) repeatedly… Taken together, the statistical evidence presented here and elsewhere (Cahill et al. 2015; Foster and Abraham 2015) shows that the “pause” period is comparable in statistical terms with other recent fluctuations… This possibility was explored in a blind test involving professional economists, who were asked specifically to comment on the presence of a pause or hiatus in GMST… but presented as “world agricultural output”… In summary, in two blind tests, experts and novice observers alike consider the evidence of continued global warming to be clear. By contrast, statements endorsing the pause were identified by experts in forecasting and time series analysis to be misleading and at odds with the data”

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So, in other words, you can offer no quantifiable property of CO2 that could explain a change in its concentration causing a measurable atmospheric change for any CO2 concentration change of anthropogenic proportion. Did CO2 cause the apparent step change seen in the late ’90s?

                      How does this http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995 cause this http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2014/trend?

                    • waxliberty

                      “So, in other words, you can offer no quantifiable property of CO2 that could explain a change in its concentration causing a measurable atmospheric change”

                      Um, I would “offer” the well-known infrared absorption properties of CO2, which you can verify in your very own lab. Look up two messages in the thread and I provide you a reference to a study showing the direct connection between CO2 concentration and the surface energy balance. The fact that you don’t understand or address something isn’t actually a valid rebuttal – do you really not get how logic works?

                      “How does this cause that?”

                      Your implicit reasoning seems to be “CO2 is the only thing that can affect the surface temperature”. Like many shallow assumptions in a complicated world, it just turns out to be a bad assumption.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, you show no direct connection, just arm waving about infrared absorption. How do you think that will change temperature enough to measure?

                    • waxliberty

                      Dave, the reference to the Feldman paper above shows a direct change to the surface energy budget. Are you familiar with the basics of climate science, the concept of earth’s energy budget (radiative equilibrium) and forcings measured in terms of watts per square meter of influences on the incoming/outgoing balance of energy on the planet?

                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

                      Mainstream science is well documented. If you think there is a flaw, why don’t you explain where the flaw is. If you want someone to walk you through the scientific evidence and reasoning, I’d be willing but you’d have to give some indication you are actually interested in learning what the mainstream view is (even if your only intent is to critique it), and as yet I’m not really getting that impression…

                      The ticket to entry to debating a science topic is being able to summarize the current mainstream view. You are clearly far from understanding that, so there is little room for discussion here. Sorry.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You can’t explain something that isn’t actually happening, and that is what is wrong with the “GHG” argument from the beginning. The whole thing is based on a lot of fools like yourself who have been given and have accepted a false explanation of how a greenhouse actually works.

                    • waxliberty

                      Ah, greenhouse effect denier. It would be helpful if you guys would just flag which anti-AGW subsect you are members of so we don’t waste time.

                      Yes Dave, the name “greenhouse” is metaphorical for the effect. It’s embarrassing that you think this is a useful comment. You are probably sufficiently educated to know how fringe your position is on this, and you know what evidence it is that you so hopelessly cannot explain:

                      * where does all of that downwelling infrared come from?
                      * why do the changes in outgoing IR that result from changes in atmospheric chemistry exactly match what is predicted from radiative transfer theory when measured from space? etc.)

                      I’m not one to waste time arguing with your subsect of crankery, the internet has reams of content. The greenhouse effect does not describe “heaters in the sky”, it describes a radiative insulating effect. Insulation is not a violation of the 2nd law. Spare me your sophistry, I won’t respond to it.

                      If you want to argue about this, feel free to start with global warming critic Roy Spencer’s article “Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water”
                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

                      “Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.

                      My highlight on the “Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad”. Just wanted to make sure you didn’t miss the fact that you are absolutely making critics of anthropogenic climate change action look very, very bad. Hard to exaggerate how bad this looks to physics literates. Decide how deeply you want to embarrass yourself and the larger anti-AGW movement, and proceed as you wish.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      waxtyranny,

                      I’ll stop the “no ghg stuff” when Hell freezes over. It is a stupid hypothesis that is an analogy of a misconception of how a greenhouse works. Your attempts at presenting evidence are almost as humorous as your claimed proofs.

                      Solar energy is stored on Earth in many ways, and released at many rates with varied delay. Just like the IPCC, and many other climate clowns, you have presented no physics to explain how any gas warms Earth’s surface. Just because you can measure the temperature of the sky doesn’t mean the sky is warming the ground. Just look at the temperature you measured.

                      I am certainly not embarrassed by my attempts to persuade those who have been mislead to look at reality. Fools like yourself are likely beyond hope.

                    • waxliberty

                      Ah Dave, typical of fringe cranks you can’t respond to direct points because it gives away the game, doesn’t it? I clearly said the sky is not warming the ground, that the GHG effect is insulation.

                      Just to entertain the very small crowd willing to stand around and gawk at the spectacle you like to make of yourself, why don’t you try again to answer some direct questions:

                      (1) What’s your personal explanation for why the world’s textbooks, physicists, academies and scientific community uniformly disagrees with you on this, even the fringe characters who believe the IPCC is perpetrating a grand conspiracy don’t buy your “alternative physics”. What’s the explanation – conspiracy, contagious madness, or simply a question that your personal IQ is so high that the things you say are right in a way others cannot understand, and so you just sound like you are speaking indulgent gibberish to us?

                      (2) Since you reject radiative transfer theory (you think the downwelling IR doesn’t represent any energy retained in the system, it is just “the temperature of the sky”), why do you think scientists are able to exactly predict the spectroscopic changes in outgoing IR that result from changes in atmospheric chemistry, like the ongoing increase in global CO2 (now 40% higher than a couple of centuries ago)? Why are there any increasing bites to outgoing IR at all given the greenhouse effect is not really a thing like science says it is?

                      (3) Do you believe human beings walked on the moon?

                      (4) Who do you think shot JFK?

                      (5) Why do you think physicists continue to insist that a perpetual motion machine is impossible when there is in fact so much evidence on the internet that many of these free energy devices have actually been created but the science is being repressed by evil tyrannical governments?

                      Looking forward to learning from you Dave.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      wax,
                      I’ll treat each of your questions separately. Here is number 1:

                      Until recently, text books weren’t corrupted by the “ghg” nonsense. If you do some research you might discover some key figures were responsible, e.g. George Woodwell, Margaret Meade, Stephen Schneider, to name a few, for promoting the “ghg” nonsense, and getting it into curricula and text books starting in the ’70s. It is after all, a progressive, socialist, communist dream; a non-provable subject that can be used to control folks like yourself.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Until recently, text books weren’t corrupted by the “ghg” nonsense.”

                      Explain how the Earth’s surface is about 30 C warmer than the sun can make it.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Explain why you think “Earth’s surface is about 30C warmer than the Sun can make it”. Most likely, you’ve been tricked.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’m serious: Explain why you think “Earth’s surface is about 30C warmer than the Sun can make it”.

                      This is Day 1 of the very first class in climate science an undergraduate might take….

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The Earth’s surface isn’t any hotter than the sun can make it.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      (2) Your question appears too vague, imprecise, and presumptuous to answer.

                      (3) Yes

                      (4) One of LBJ’s buddies.

                      (5) You are probably capable of learning, but first you need to figure out what the subject is. Why do the people you claim to be physicists insist there is a greenhouse effect, which is just another form of perpetual motion?

                    • waxliberty

                      (2) is not that hard. flux plotted against wavelength. do you also not believe in Planck curves or something?

                      look at Figure 3(a) here:
                      https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

                      why do the model and observed lines in this chart line up?

                      As previously noted, claiming the greenhouse effect is “perpetual motion” flags ignorance of subject. There is nothing remotely close to a violation of the 2nd here. Energy flows from the sun, through the earth’s fluid skin and out to space. Slowing the loss to space and increasing the surface temperature is just another valid equilibrium state, with no violation of the 2nd. How is something so simple over your head? Do you also think a blanket “heating” a person sleeping beneath it is a perpetual motion machine? How does an unpowered device heat something, Dave?

                    • NiCuCo

                      “physics to explain how any gas warms Earth’s surface.”

                      Do your clothes warm your body or just reduce the heat loss? Whatever your answer to that question, with layers of clothing on you are warmer than you would be without them.

                      Little of the energy coming into the atmosphere (from the Sun) is longwave (infrared). The energy radiated up from the Earth’s surface is all longwave. CO2 absorbs some of that energy, oxygen, nitrogen and argon do not. Much of that absorbed energy is re-radiated, some of it out to space, some of it back to Earth. The amount that goes back to Earth is energy that would have gone to space if not for the CO2 (or another greenhouse gas). This energy makes the Earth’s surface warmer than otherwise.

                      Whether your clothes warm you or just reduce heat loss, whether the temperature of the atmosphere is greater than or less than the temperature of the surface, greenhouse gases reduce the loss of heat from the Earth’s surface to space.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Pure nonsense. There is no such reduction in heat loss in the open atmosphere.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The atmosphere is in no way like layers of clothing. There is no truth to your argument.

                    • jmac

                      Excellent.

                    • jmac

                      #facepalm please try reading on IR and longwave radiation. A simple article in wiki willpedia will most likely suffice to give you some clarity on the topic.

                    • VooDude

                      This really isn’t anything new, except that Tyndall’s brass tube has been replaced by clear sky conditions, and observations limited to very well-edited circumstances. The additional CO2 causes additional interference with infrared radiant heat … The laboratory conditions have been replicated in the sky … but, all the things that a real atmosphere does, were carefully edited out. The outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation is being inhibited by the increased carbon dioxide…

                      Globally, the earth responds to “climate change” in ways that mitigate the change. Most prominently, earth can modulate the incoming shortwave sunshine by modulating the albedo. About half of the albedo comes from clouds. Just a ½% increase to the processes involved in cloud formation is equal in magnitude to all of “global warming”.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d2b3f51e34c13086fccede99951a54ba7c9e334244e7e31ff4294c19d65eb2.jpg

                      The outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation is being inhibited by the increased carbon dioxide… just like Tyndall’s brass tube.
                      But, the gases in that tube did not advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, like a real atmosphere does … and, the conditions under which Feldman took data, avoided the periods where the real atmosphere “did things” over his Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer. That’s why this is just “clear sky” data. In a real world scenario, clouds preferentially form as the surface warms. Not always, and not everywhere, and it isn’t a perfect thermostat …

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20d0e9a453e4661a80272917c91d16527c678ad4b7165dc421961f367953807e.jpg

                    • waxliberty

                      Unfortunately clouds don’t just have an albedo effect, they also trap infrared in the same way greenhouse gases do. So it is a ‘clear sky’ study to avoid having to adjust for variable cloud cover which would increase the effect. Your response is an elaborate way of saying “but more white clouds could save us”. The available evidence indicates that the cloud feedback effect is likely positive – net addition of more heat-trapping type clouds vs. reflecting type clouds.

                      E.g. from the IPCC: “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds”

                      The idea that cloud feedback acts to keep the climate “naturally regulated” is unfortunately wildly at odds with paleoclimate evidence (the glacial/interglacial changes, for example) which make it clear that the climate does change in respond to forcings – even forcings much smaller than the CO2/methane/black carbon driven anthropogenic forcing dominating today.

                    • VooDude

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37569d600a8e674ab709aa0d868bfbdaa72c20e174bf754b2a6118d068f53dd6.jpg

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3861e1033c799807b6f3030590eaea55bf87b0af172b2025be396cb92682cc4a.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

                    • VooDude

                      ”We show how clouds provide the necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry. We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and regulation by clouds.”

                      Stephens et al. 2015 “The albedo of Earth” Reviews of Geophysics

                      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Webster3/publication/271590174_The_Albedo_of_Earth/links/5516b2b40cf2f7d80a38a771.pdf

                    • waxliberty

                      OK, I’ll bite. what do you imagine you’ve found *this* time?

                      I assume it’s just “look clouds aren’t modeled entirely correctly!” but will give you a chance to explain why you’ve discovered something far more interesting than that, which *truly* exposes “all the lying scientists and the like” (quoting one of your fellow believers there).

                    • VooDude

                      During about the same time period, using all-sky data:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7284311bd39f1b54da5654cf20551919fa9f4c3e7880870c2c03fc6d223dac9.jpg
                      The 22 ppmv CO2 increase shows a DECREASE in downwelling, longwave flux.

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      The air we breathe:

                      78% Nitrogen
                      21% Oxygen
                      1% Trace Gases (including CO2)
                      (this 1% illustrated below)

                    • Dano2

                      Congratulations. You’ve just proven medicine is not effective and pHrma is a big scam.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      I don’t understand your comment. I was just showing David Appell how CO2 is a minor gas (I think he meant trace gas).

                    • Dano2

                      medicine is a trace compound in the human body. Increasing most medicines by 40% would have a profound effect.

                      Best,,

                      D

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      OK, I get your point, but that’s apples and oranges.

                    • Dano2

                      The proportion of medicine to the human body is the same as CO2 to the atmosphere.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      But, 40% more CO2 since 1850 did not kill us. And another 40% won’t either. Apples and oranges.

                    • Dano2

                      Nobody said anything about ‘kill’, so not sure why you brought it up.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      I was right. You are an idiot, posing as a liar.

                    • Dano2

                      No need to lash out with falsehoods because I pointed out your use of a strawman (especially when it is so transparent that everyone can see it).

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Johnstoirvin

                      Clarification… Dano2 IS NOT an idiot. I was commenting on two different articles and got them mixed up. Sorry about that.

                    • Nuke Pro

                      Ya book Dano, guilty as charged

                    • Voodude

                      Dano2: “Congratulations. You’ve just proven medicine is not effective and pHrma is a big scam.”

                      Well, you killed that straw man, didn’t you?

                  • DavidAppell

                    Is ozone a “minor gas?”

                    • In your experience and according to your educated opinion, have you made any headway lately in convincing or persuading or even influencing science deniers to become realists?

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I doubt it, hectoring and insults go nowhere.

                    • Probably plenty of this going on from all sides of the “debate”

                    • Or your understanding of science is inadequate and you cannot defend your opinions and common beliefs. Science is what separates mere opinion for justified belief in what’s probably true

                • gnac

                  Heat flows from high to low. If you find a way to concentrate heat without work – let me know – we can both be rich.

                  • DavidAppell

                    So a CO2 molecule that emits an infrared photon downward doesn’t carry heat?

                    • gnac

                      Sure CO2 will release heat. But there is no net direction, it emits heat in all directions around the molecule. Energy will then flow from high concentration to low concentration….the orientation of the molecule is irrelevent.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Some of the heat emitted by CO2 is downward. That *IS* global warming.

                  • DavidAppell

                    “Heat flows from high to low.”

                    This is a common misconception regarding climate change. *NET* heat flows from high to low. CO2’s heat warms the surface, while the stratosphere gets cooler. And the restrictions of the second law of thermodynamics don’t apply to the Earth, because it is not an isolated system — it exchanges energy with the space around it — incoming energy from the Sun, radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere.

                    • gnac

                      You are saying you can increase the temperature gradient from the surface of the earth to space by adding ppm levels of CO2? But for the past 20 years the increasing CO2 level has done nothing – paused for some unknown reason!

                    • DavidAppell

                      Don’t you know that the stratosphere cools with CO2-induced surface warming?

                      Your 20-year claim is flat-out wrong. Examine the data. I have.

                    • gnac

                      Fantastic mechanism!

                      This is what I hear you saying: Increased CO2 levels in the 100 to 200 ppm range (250 to 400 currently) increase the temperature gradient between the surface and space by both increasing the retention of energy at the surface (as evidenced by higher measured temperatures) AND decreased retention of energy at the interface of the stratosphere and space (a cooler stratosphere).

                      Where is the link to this fantastic mechanism…..

                      For your consideration CO2 PPM vs temp over a loooong period of time. Hope AGW is not a religion for you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Where is the link to this fantastic mechanism…..”

                      The link is that the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 absorbs it.

                • BigWaveDave

                  What you are suggesting is idiotic. The atmospheric density decreases with altitude. There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.

                  • DavidAppell

                    “There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.”

                    Prove this claim. With physics.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You were asked to prove yours first, and since you have a physics degree, it should be easy for you to do without needing any outside sources. Have at it. Please show us a heat and mass balance explaining how sky radiators heat the planet.

                      As for proving mine, I had to turn the heater on, because I couldn’t rely on radiation from the 0.06% of atmospheric mass that is CO2, warming the rest of the air.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You made a claim: “There aren’t enough radiators in the sky to warm the surface even if your scenario as possible.”

                      Now it’s clear you can’t prove that claim. Hence, it’s time to withdraw it.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You can’t prove that there is any such thing as a “GHG”.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Do you think that carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb infrared radiation???

                      This was first shown by Tyndall in 1861…..

                      “On the Absorption and radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction,” John Tyndall, Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22, 169-194, 273-285 (1861).
                      http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

                    • DavidAppell

                      “As for proving mine, I had to turn the heater on, because I couldn’t rely on radiation from the 0.06% of atmospheric mass that is CO2, warming the rest of the air.”

                      Is your room a hundred kilometers high?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Please show us a heat and mass balance explaining how sky radiators heat the planet.”

                      You’re wrong from the very start — it isn’t about mass balance, it’s about the radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

                    • TienBing

                      If your feet are cold – a solution is warm socks. Only to a leftist twit is that a political decision.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You completely avoided the question…. I think I know why.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Yes, climate clowns ignore mass. It is a big part of their miseducation.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Show me where anyone ignores mass. I dare you.

                      Q: How does transfer of heat via mass changes compare to heat transfer from radiative physics?

                  • DavidAppell

                    PS: Why do you think the Earth’s surface temperature is about 60 deg F more than the Sun can account for?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The sun warms the land surface, atmosphere and oceans on the day side of the Earth .It is the source of particularly stupid and annoying comments like we would supposedly freeze without GHGs.

                      The sun warms much of the land to more than 100 F. It cools to below that at night, before it warms again.

                      The oceans are nearly perfect solar collectors that store most of what they receive from the sun, and redistribute that energy to parts of the planet not heated directly. Ocean currents transport sensible heat, and ocean evaporation seeds the atmosphere with latent heat in water vapor. Solar energy is also stored in and transported by biomass both in the oceans and on land, and later released, often in another location.

                      The oceans thermal inertia dwarfs that of the atmosphere and surface.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Correction to second sentence. Th “60 deg F more than the Sun can account for” is the source of particularly stupid and annoying comments like we would supposedly freeze without GHGs.

            • Concerned

              Dano2, your first statement “may” be true, but for different reasons that you are implying. Without CO2, plants cannot grow and without plants, there would be a severe shortage of Oxygen and water vapor as we experience on earth.
              I know that my 10th and 11th grade science and physics did not address the causes of global warming and global cooling nor the facts that this occurs in yearly, 11 yr, 22 year, 40yr, 60yr, 100 yr, and 206 year cycles. It is very difficult to find any CO2 cycles that match this, but solar cycles combined with PDO and AMO cycles (caused by the sun) do match this.
              An article by Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) First Uploaded ISO: Oct. 13, 2009 addresses many of these issues in his arcticle titled: “The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.

              • Dano2

                What do plants have to do with the heat-trapping properties of GHGs? Besides nothing, I mean.

                Best,

                D

            • The most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Also the most common. Without CO2 the H2O would still be up there providing 90%+ of the greenhouse effect, maybe it would even take up the slack caused by the loss of CO2, but the fact is the level of CO2 didn’t have to fall much more before plants would start dying due to the lack, so it’s probably a good thing it’s going up and giving us a larger safety margin.

              In times past the CO2 was 4,000 to 5,000 times greater, and yet we had a major glaciation!

              • Dano2

                the level of CO2 didn’t have to fall much more before plants would start dying due to the lack,

                See-oh-too dangerously low! Drink!

                Best,

                D

          • DavidAppell

            Brin: You might read

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

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

            • Goldminer

              I prefer the the lecture given by the esteemed Nobel prize winning Climate Scientist supremo Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth where AL shows how CO2 drives temperature throughout the history of the Earth. 😉 QED

              • DavidAppell

                Really? Ever hear of the PETM?

          • Mary Brown

            There is essentially no debate over the warming properties of CO2 in the atmosphere. We (climate scientists) argue over “how much” and “how bad”.

            • Brin Jenkins

              Mary please explain the mechanism.

            • Ryder

              But that is a false argument. CO2 is NOT the primary warming gas used in the models. Water is… as clouds/vapor. Climate scientists, so far as I am given to understand… have nothing close to a definitive answer with respect to the effects of atmospheric wateras clouds or vapor… and as the models are constructed to deliver about 2/3rds of warming directly from this poorly understood water (and NOT CO2), then this is obviously the bigger issue.

              If the total forcing from clouds or vapor is not well understood, and we can’t even say for sure if the feedback is positive or negative… then obviously “the science” on this matter is not understood well enough.

              And no self-respecting scientist would be asking “how bad” with respect to warming. That’s a subjective assessment. It indicates bias… and has no place here.

              And yet the models assign 2/3rds of climate change to it… then (some) scientists hide behind the comparatively minor understanding of CO2, and water never even comes up.

              It’s called dodging.

              And no self respecting scientist should be doing it.

              • Voodude

                What are the climate models missing? Lots. They are wrong on the Carbon Cycle, ENSO, and especially, CLOUDS

                ”… an adequate description of basic processes like cloud formation, moist convection, and mixing is what climate models miss most.”

                ”Yet, it has had relatively little impact on key uncertainties that emerged in early studies with less comprehensive models (6). These uncertainties include the equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, the global warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide), arctic amplification of temperature changes, and regional precipitation responses. Rather than reducing biases stemming from an inadequate representation of basic processes, additional complexity has multiplied the ways in which these biases introduce uncertainties in climate simulations

                ”There is now ample evidence that an inadequate representation of clouds and moist convection, or more generally the coupling between atmospheric water and circulation, is the main limitation in current representations of the climate system. … this limitation constitutes a major roadblock to progress in climate science

                ”Differences among the simulations … are especially evident in the tropics, where the sign of cloud changes and the spatial structure of the precipitation response differ fundamentally between models.”

                ”the coupling between water and circulation is disproportionately dependent on the representation of unresolved processes, such as moist convection and cloud formation

                Stevens, Bjorn, and Sandrine Bony 2013. “What are climate models missing.” Science

                http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~fcodron/COURS/papiers/Stevens%20-%20Science%202013.pdf

              • Haut

                Don,t worry Brown is a sold out Kike, pushing the Zionist Agenda, they are soon to be delegated to History!

            • Nuke Pro

              Mary, please weigh in on this.
              The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring
              with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband
              infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the
              equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the
              main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas

            • Voodude

              The gases in Tyndall’s brass tube didn’t convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has. Arrhenius made the claims. Niels Bohr told Arrhenius that he was all wrong.

              Clouds thermostatically regulate the earth.

            • Haut

              Your an Idiot, & A kike, SFO

              • Scarlet LeMay

                Haut. Now , now, no reason for name calling!

            • Haut

              Yea your an Idiot, & A Kike SFO

            • Haut

              How much do you get paid to sell out AS?

          • Robert

            Where?
            “I have looked ”

          • Robert

            ” I have looked and can see no way in which CO2 is responsible.”

            Where have you been looking?

        • Concerned

          Yes your statement is correct, but Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 hypothesis (based Fourier and on Pouillet’s idea) was refutted by Robert Wood in 1909. There is NO clear thermodynamic definition of the “Greenhouse Effect” for our earth.
          There is no argument that incoming radiation + heat generation by earth must be balanced with the outgoing radiation to maintain a stable temperature on earth. But how this is achieved is the big question that is not clearly understood.
          Of the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere, the 0.5% to 3% of water vapor (and clouds) has a much larger effect on earth’s temperature than the 0.04% contributed by CO2.
          See attachments:

          • Dano2

            Whoa. Your offhand comment on an obscure blog, today, has just overturned a century and a half of fizzix, and textbooks all over the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld will have to be recalled and re-written!

            Whoa.

            Nonetheless, I’ll take the points on offer:

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

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

            • Robert

              “just overturned a century and a half of fizzix, and textbooks all over the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld”

              See, it is not so difficult to get the world to see things through the contrarian eye….. /s (just in case)

          • Robert
            • Concerned

              Robert,
              Thanks for the link, I was not aware of the dialog presented and I found it interesting. However, in the end, it appears there is still a lot of disagreement on this subject and the Greenhouse Effect for earth appears to be dramatically different than a Greenhouse on earth. Our scientists seem to be struggling to come up with an accurate thermodynamic model for earth as it applies to the Greenhouse Effect.

              • Robert

                Part of the problem is the ‘greenhouse effect’ is an analogy. Trying to disprove how GHGs work in the atmosphere by showing that a greenhouse works differently isn’t really an argument.

                I’m not sure how accurate your last sentence is. Perhaps you can point to something supporting your assertion.

                • Concerned

                  After reading multiple articles on this, I find all of them interesting and clearly a number of these are just wrong. However, three interesting reads are as follows:
                  1. Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.) Revision 5 ISO: Dec2011:
                  “The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the Greenhouse Effect.”
                  2. Douglas J. Cotton B. Sc (Physics), B.A. (Econ):
                  “Why Its NOT Carbon Dioxide After All.”
                  3. Claes Johnson “Computational Blackbody Radiation”
                  Attached are two different representations of Earth’s Energy Budget from two different sources.
                  New paper published (Ballab Kattel,Tandong Yao, Wei Yang, Yang Gao, Lide Tian) in the International Journal of Climatology analyzes the temperature lapse rates of the Himalayas over the past 20 years. This shows exactly what the 33C Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect predicts: Per the lapse rate equation: dT/dh = -g/Cp. These are the equations used by NASA for predicting temperatures at various altitudes for space exploration for all planets.

                  • Robert

                    There becomes a point where it is no longer necessary to look at the contrarian science and just do what your 6th grade librarian tried to teach; Resource Evaluation.

                    There are multiple reasons why the arguments from the contrarians / fake skeptics / deniers / et al are only published in journals with impact factors hovering around 1 or are newspaper editorials or are claims about bad physics being posted on comment threads.

                    See:

                    Evaluating Information Sources

                    Why Evaluate?

                    Authority

                    Accuracy

                    Scope

                    Primary Sources

                    Why Evaluate?

                    http://help.library.ubc.ca/evaluating-and-citing-sources/evaluating-information-sources/

                    CRAAP Resource Evaluation

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

                    EVALUATING WEBSITES AND

                    ONLINE INFORMATION

                    FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL

                    STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

                    http://www.averillpark.k12.ny.us/web-site-evaluation

                    • Concerned

                      Being in the semiconductor industry, things are always changing and as a result, things that were “facts” 5 years ago are no longer facts ended up being just someone’s opinions. In truth, many times we do not know WHO is the real Authority, was it Niels Bohr or Albert Einstein? To me, science is the search for truth and I have difficulty calling people fake skeptics or deniers unless I can understand the facts associated with their research and associated claims. Scientists have the right to do their research and as the facts change, they have the right to change their minds.

                      Recently I became aware of work by Jose, Landscheidt, & Charvatova posted by Geoff Sharp regarding the sun:(http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216) tied to Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) discussing the Modulating Force and the Disruptive Force challenging Leif Svalgaard. However, both parties have very compelling information that states that our sun is driver for the global warming and global cooling and not CO2 as we have been told. CO2 “might be” a minor factor. The information maps to history as well as predicting the future along with the current pause in GW. All parties are well published in reputable journals.

                    • Robert

                      There is a huge body of scientific literature; some is published in journals that are very consistently showing the best of science and original research, some published in journals that don’t. The majority are solid; they have reputations to keep, and the papers show that in how they impact further research.

                      And while there may be a range of opinion on various aspects of the wide range of fields encompassing ACC, there is that solid, very large, body of research that is very clear.

                      Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
                      changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
                      warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
                      concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
                      SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

                      And

                      Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
                      The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
                      concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}

                      and

                      Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
                      gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
                      understanding of the climate system. {2–14}

                      IPCC SPM AR5

                      Again, you can find something out there to fit to most any opinion – that’s why we have conspiracy theorists and people claiming that the physics being taught is wrong – but rational people don’t need to be experts in a highly specialized field to have the capability to sort out the wheat from the chaff. After all, middleschool kids get it:

                      EVALUATING WEBSITES AND ONLINE INFORMATION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL
                      STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

                    • Concerned

                      Yes, Robert, I have read the entire IPCC report and find glaring problems. That is why I elect to read both sides of a discussion. As admitted by the head of the IPCC, the report was written to support political reasons and for governments; as a result, it has a lot of difficulty in substantiating many of the claims:
                      Closed minds seldom contribute to our learning and that of our society. Nearly every claim (snow cover, tornado’s, ocean temperatures, amounts of snow, ice) can be refuted by factual data: (much of the data shown comes from NOAA, government agencies, universities, and other reputable scientists.) Clearly, there are many opinions and hypotheses, just a science should proceed. If one piece of data invalidates the hypothesis, that hypothesis fails and needs to be redone.
                      Out of the 79 or 121 AGW models, not a single model matches the measured results. This tells us “we have a problem with the models.” Even sea level rise has multiple problems.

                    • Robert

                      And no examples?

                      ” ….read the entire IPCC report and find glaring problems. “

                    • Robert

                      Source?

                      “…admitted by the head of the IPCC, the report was written to support political reasons..”

                    • Concerned

                      This was reported when Mr. Pachauri announced he was stepping down. (Rajendra Kumar Pachauri)

                      Despite abundant and obvious counter-evidence, the so-called global warming alarmists cling to their little theory. For them, it’s not about facts. It’s about faith.

                      Rajendra Kumar Pachauri admits as much. He chaired the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of Warmism. Pachauri quit the IPCC Tuesday amid sexual harassment charges. “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is [sic] more than a mission,” his resignation letter stated. “It is my religion and my dharma.”

                      Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Will-Gadd-Bill-McKibben-NOAA-Rajendra-Kumar-Pachauri/2015/02/26/id/627102/#ixzz3anygfaTl

                      Prior to the 27 Sept. 2013 report release he was asked: now that the science is now so certain, and asked whether it might not be a better use of resources to focus on specific regions or extreme weather events”

                      Pachauri said the IPCC would discuss those suggestions at a meeting in Batumi, Georgia, next month. But he said the final decision on the IPCC’s mission, and the future of the blockbuster climate reports, would rest with governments.

                      “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” he said. “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

                      http://www.theguardian.com/envirionment/2013/sep/19/ipcc-chairman-climate-report?CMP=twt_fd
                      Other quotes are also available. Also, to date, we are not aware of anyone, any country, or any organization who believes that he or they can stop climate change. Even modifying climate change with known results cannot be claimed by anyone. The reason is that it is controlled by the sun and is part of the earth’s natural events.

                    • Robert

                      Note “my” . Not ‘our’. He was speaking to his personal beliefs. And you tried to make it some official policy statement.

                      Government asking , possibly, for a different ‘product’. Not changing the reported results.

                      Basically, your claims fid under Agenda21.

                    • Concerned

                      We just read the facts as stated by that person. As a person in high office (just like our President), when he makes these statements, it is for the UN and IPCC, not just for him.
                      We understand where you are coming from. Now are you personally in favor of the U.S. paying >$100B to China, India, and “the other undeveloped countries of the world” promised by the developed Western countries who have polluted our atmosphere with CO2 by historical burning of fossil fuels?

                    • Robert

                      “My.” Not “our”.

                    • Robert

                      ” developed Western countries who have polluted our atmosphere with CO2 by historical burning of fossil fuels?”

                      Thank you for acknowledgeing that.

                    • Concerned

                      As you well know, more than 50% of CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans. Yes, humans burn fossil fuels for various reasons, but very little CO2 (<4% of the total) comes from humans.

                    • Robert

                      Account for the rise from 280 to 400.

                    • Concerned

                      Yes, as we know, for the greenhouse gases, water vapor is about 0.8% and CO2 accounts for approximately 0.04% of our atmosphere and humans contribute about 4% of this CO2 0.04%. That is why the numbers are measured in parts per million (ppm). 400 PPM = 0.0004 total (or 0.04% as shown). No arguments and includes facts. Nearly all historical records show that increases in CO2 are preceded by an increase in temperature by at least 1 year. Today, people are attempting to identify what causes the temperature increase (or decrease) so that adequate planning is in place.

                      Everyone knows that warming of the oceans (by any means) causes more CO2 to be released by the oceans. Therefore, both the oceans and man contribute to the 400 PPM. Separating how much is from man and how much is from the ocean is very difficult, but some people have attempted. But clearly CO2 is rising. Likewise, if the oceans begin to cool, the atmospheric CO2 will drop to lower levels due to ocean effects.
                      However, the fundamental question is “how much is too much CO2?” If there are no known catastrophic affects, then 400 PPM is very good for man due to the increased productivity in agriculture. A warm atmosphere has been much more beneficial to man than cold periods.

                      Atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate from about 185 parts-per-million (ppm), during ice ages, to around 280 ppm, during warmer periods like today (termed interglacials). The oceans currently contain approximately sixty times more carbon than the atmosphere and that carbon can exchange rapidly (from a geological perspective) between these two systems (atmosphere-ocean).

                      Co-author Dr. Gavin Foster from the University of Southampton commented: “Just like the way the oceans have stored around 30 per cent of humanity’s fossil fuel emissions over the last 100 years or so, our new data confirms that natural variations in atmospheric CO2 between ice ages and warm interglacials are driven largely by changes in the amount of carbon stored in our oceans.

                    • Robert

                      “historical records show that”

                      That would be a great place for a footnote. .

                    • Concerned

                      Both recent (last 35 years) “historical” data and 50,000 year “historical” data show that CO2 lags temperature. No foot-note required since this is already published information and you can see the plots.

                    • Robert
                    • Concerned

                      Yes, I read both of your “biased” reference sites on a regular basis. As with me, most of their information relies on the research and publishing of others. Sometimes their information is good; however, quite often the information is dated (2003, 2007, 2009, 2010) and misleading, often it presents hypotheses that are presented as “I believe” or “we think”, but not solid data showing cause and effect. By the way, those are not my graphs, they are graphs of the authors / publishers done under peer-review. Also, I usually find information that refutes what skepticalscience presents, so those doing the refuting can also throw around comments like “some solid science!”
                      However, I have not seen the recent near-term (35 year) temp-CO2 data (shown in attachment) as being refuted. Following are some other interesting links along with their references:
                      http://www.thegwpf.com/paper-carbon-dioxide-lags-global-temperature/
                      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008 http://patch.com/georgia/athens/bp–man-made-global-warming-settled-science-00bcd6ce

                    • Robert

                      W. Pauli comes to mind….
                      “However, I have not seen the recent near-term (35 year) temp-CO2 data (shown in attachment) as being refuted.”

                    • Concerned

                      Guess we are both familiar with Wolfgang Pauli, electron spin and the exclusion principle, but he might have a problem with CO2.

                    • Robert

                      There’s a rather famous quote…..

                    • Concerned

                      Yes, it is well-known, but there are only a few people in this world who are qualified to use that quote. However, very few people are aware of some of his additional quotes, some of which are more applicable to this discussion: “I don’t mind your thinking slowly; I mind your publishing faster than you think.”

                    • Robert

                      Yeah, that one works in this instance also.

                    • Robert

                      Numbers?

                      “Therefore, both the oceans and man contribute to the 400 PPM”

                    • Concerned

                      This has to be the case since both oceans and forests helped establish the 285 ppm level before we claim that man is responsible. What are your numbers? I am referencing one recent study out of Norway and linked (below) their plot of actual data:
                      “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
                      Ole Humlum a, b, Kjell Stordahl c, Jan-Erik Solheim d
                      a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
                      b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
                      c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
                      d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

                      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008

                      Highlights
                      ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

                      This data shows two methods of comparing against the governmental established databases and represent relatively short-term changes. The long-term (100K year) lead/lag characterizations are controversial.

                    • Robert

                      “This has to be the case since both oceans and forests helped establish the 285 ppm level before we claim that man is responsible.”
                      And you brought forward no data that supports a contention that either has changed levels of input. We do have that pesky isotope though…..

                    • Robert

                      Your research is where?
                      “The reason is that it is controlled by the sun and is part of the earth’s natural events.”

                    • Concerned

                      Where is your research?
                      As you well know, I am not involved in solar research; however, it is my assumption that you are requesting references. My research involves reading various papers while high-lighting pro’s and con’s of each. Unfortunately the database is extremely large and cannot be addressed with this message. With 100’s (or thousands) of researchers and scientists, it is difficult to link all variations. However, research relative to the solar effects to our climate occur in nearly every large industrialized country including Germany, the U.S. (NASA), Russia (Russian Academy of Sciences and Pulkovo Observatory, St.Petersburg), Australia, Denmark, U.K., China, India, Japan, etc.
                      Recently (5/22/2015) Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate — Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist
                      and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years.
                      Good articles by Habibullo Abdussamatov (solar TSI belo) http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/04/new-paper-russian-solar-physicist-by-habibullo-abdussamatov-predicts-another-little-ice-age-within-the-next-30-years/
                      Interesting articles by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt:(planetary effects on sun and Gleissberg maxima and Minimum): http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
                      Most recent (May 22, 2015) is: “A simulated lagged response of the north atlantic oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009.” by M.B. Andrews1, J.R. Knight1, & L.J. Gray2
                      1 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, EX1 3PB,UK
                      2 NCAS-Climate, Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford,UK.
                      Most of the referenced articles have multiple references associated with them along with peer-reviewed publications.

                    • Robert

                      Now take their numbers and compare them to the research cited in AR5. Why are you taking less than a handful of papers, papers virtually only cited in a handful of contrarian blogs, and telling us that they overpower the work done by the IPCC?

                      Start with how your papers move the solar bar so far in figure 5 SPM wg1 AR5 to overpower the forcing of co2.

                    • Concerned

                      Unfortunately, AR5 is not the reference point. It is only in the past 5 years or so that people are even looking seriously at the various solar affects and solar numbers as being the primary cause for climate change. The teams that are proposing solar as being the main cause for both warming and cooling have shown better matching to reality than the myriad of IPCC cited models.

                    • Robert

                      Tell us why you think “Unfortunately, AR5 is not the reference point.”

                    • Robert

                      ” It is only in the past 5 years or so that people are even looking seriously at the various solar affects and solar numbers as being the primary cause for climate change. ”

                      Nope, look up the pub dates. NASA, etc have decades of solar research. Also see: http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

                      You have grabbed onto a few outlier papers fed to you by contrarian/denier blogs that don’t point to the full body of research.

                      Again, give us numbers that show how you are going to move that bar past the level of CO2 forcing:

                    • Robert

                      Examples?

                      “..Nearly every claim (snow cover, tornado’s, ocean temperatures, amounts of snow, ice) can be refuted by factual data:..”

                    • Concerned

                      NOAA and National Weather Service (Dr. Greg Forbes) — see attachments and other attachments were included in the prior discussion. Most can be found on Google search: http://www.weather.com/safety/tornado/news/tornado-count-hits-record-lows

                    • Robert

                      Just tornado news?

                    • Concerned

                      No, there is similar data on each of the other topics, but if you don’t accept this, then why send any additional info? Where is your information and related source outside the IPCC?
                      Attached are three charts from Rutgers University (using the information from the NOAA and the National weather Service) for snow anomalies and snow cover departure from mean for the North America and for the Northern Hemisphere.
                      You can find this same information on Google Search.

                    • Robert

                      Source?

                      “Out of the 79 or 121 AGW models, not a single model matches the measured results. “

                    • Concerned

                      How many different climate models really exist?? However, as the errors are better understood, the people managing these models continue to update. But if the models do not contain the effects of the sun, the clouds, or moisture content in the atmosphere, they are bound to fail.

                      However, one summary (see attachment) comes from Dr. Spencer: Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

                      Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

                      Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, “Climate Confusion” (Encounter Books), is available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

                    • Robert

                      So, no source for your assertion. ..

                    • Concerned

                      Your opinion is yours, but as you can see from his brief resume’, Dr. Spencer is one of the most qualified persons in the world to provide comments on this subject.

        • Voodude

          Dano2: “the chemistry of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere was completed in the 1970s…”
          …and lots of papers have come out, since then, saying that the “carbon cycle” didn’t include this, or is off by half on that, or in some cases, is off by an order of magnitude on something else… Just on the carbon cycle, alone, is enough documented error (pertaining to CMIP5 GCMs) to trash the whole “global warming” theory. … let alone, other errors, like ENSO, or clouds.

        • Voodude

          Way back in 1938, Callendar observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

          Callendar, Guy Stewart. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64.275 (1938): 223-240. PDF copy is here.

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i2hp7mkq&s=5ca4636029afeea93cc59249acfa87a4df86d8f6

          “Plass (1961, among others) computed the surface temperature response of doubling CO2 with a surface-energy balance calculation. His relier estimates were sharply contested by Kaplan (1961 0), who maintained that inclusion of cloudiness wold reduce Plass’ estimate considerably.”

          Schneider, Stephen H. “On the carbon dioxide-climate confusion.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 32.11 (1975): 2060-2066.

          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C2060%3AOTCDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

        • Scarlet LeMay

          Obama won a Nobel prize , so a Nobel does not say anything about credibility . The earth tilts significantly every 2000 years . The axis points towards the next constellation. I learned this at college in Asronomy 101.This is the reason for ocean fossils being found in the Sahara desert and woolly mammoth’s digestive systems, that were found in arctic regions, are filled with tropical vegetation. There are certain natural occurrences that mankind will never be able to prevent.Unfortunately, there are many people who run around playing God that use nature as an excuse to tell populations how to live through rules and regulations.

        • BigWaveDave

          Of course you don’t realize that the error in the GHG hypothesis is in the incorrect understanding of how a greenhouse works.

          To accept it still, allows you great latitude in your attribution of cause. It is a lot like belief in witchcraft, and we all know what sorts of trouble witches can cause, don’t we?

          • Dano2

            What keeps all the heat from escaping at night and earth becoming a frozen ice bsll? Fairies flying around with blankets?

            Best,

            D

            • BigWaveDave

              The oceans and water vapor condensation keep us warm at night.

              • Dano2

                Snicker

                Best,

                D

                • BigWaveDave

                  That’s why you remain so dumb.

                  • Dano2

                    Says the guy avoiding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep the planet warm.

                    Best,

                    D

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I’m not avoiding “greenhouse gasses”. That isn’t necessary, because no one has ever shown such a thing exists.

                    • Dano2

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      I LOLzed!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • DavidAppell

                      “I’m not avoiding “greenhouse gasses”. That isn’t necessary, because no one has ever shown such a thing exists.”

                      This is trivial to rebut:

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, you have not shown that there is any such thing as a ghg.

                      What you offer is essentially the color of the atmosphere; nothing more.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Again, GHGs are trivial to ascertain in the observational data, and it’s far more than “color”:

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      But, apparently GHG’s are impossible to explain! 🙂

                    • DavidAppell

                      GHGs are trivial to explain — they absorb infrared radiation.

                      Or do you deny even that?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, I agree that CO2, water vapor, methane and other compounds absorb IR, but please explain exactly how these compounds can appreciably affect surface temperature by absorbing IR.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, I agree that CO2, water vapor, methane and other compounds absorb IR, but please explain exactly how these compounds can affect surface temperature by absorbing IR.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “…but please explain exactly how these compounds can affect surface temperature by absorbing IR.”

                      After absorption they re-radiate IR in a random direction, some of which goes downward.

                      (It’s shameful you don’t know this 7th grade science.)

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So,in 7th grade you were told “After absorption [GHGs] re-radiate IR in a random direction, some of which goes downward.”, and you believed it, but this doesn’t address the question of how this affects the surface temperature, does it?

                    • DavidAppell

                      A surface that absorbs more IR gets warmer. This is physics 101.

                      Seriously, have you ever read a SINGLE book about global warming?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Have you ever read any books on heat transfer? The atmosphere is cooler than the surface. Explain exactly how and by how much CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the surface. Seriously, you haven’t a clue.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The atmosphere is cooler than the surface.”

                      Have you ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics?

                      Really, you, a total amateur, think 100+ years of physicists somehow got this wrong? That’s preposterous.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I’m quite familiar with 2LoT. 100+ years of physicists didn’t get it wrong, but Arrhenius didn’t understand how a greenhouse works, and neither do you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The Earth is not a “greenhouse” in the same sense as we mean by constructed “greenhouses” today, which are very artificial environments.

                      It’s astounding to me that you think you understand the 2LOT better than 100+ years of the entire physics community. Talk about hubris.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So fay, you have failed to answer the questions of exactly how and how much CO2 warms Earth’s surface. You provide only simplistic group think sound bites. Are you a computer program or just a troll?

                    • DavidAppell

                      I have answered both — CO2 warms by redirecting upwelling IR down towards the ground.

                      It’s not my fault if you can’t understand that.

                      Have you ever taken a course in physics, per chance? Even in high school?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You have answered neither, You keep repeating the mistaken explanation of how a greenhouse was once thought to work.

                      How does CO2 redirect IR? How is the redirected IR able to warm a warmer surface? How much IR warming per CO2 increment should its redirected cause?

                      You then ask if I have taken a course in Physics. Yes, many.

                      Are you still in 7th grade?

                    • DavidAppell

                      CO2 redirects IR by absorbing upwelling IR, then re-radiating it in a random direction.

                      Some of that re-radiation is downward, striking the surface, warming it.

                      This is Climate 101.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      It is also nonsense!

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why is it “nonsense?” In your expert opinion….

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why is it “nonsense?”

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Because it isn’t why the surface temperature is warmer than calculated Stephan-Bolzman equilibrium temperature with (Solar insolation)/4. and nobody can offer a valid physical explanation of how and by how much CO2 causes surface warming.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Because it isn’t why the surface temperature is warmer than calculated Stephan-Bolzman equilibrium temperature with (Solar insolation)/4.”

                      Because, ding dong, the Earth has an albedo.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Let a be the Earth’s albedo. Then the solar irradiance S should create an average surface temperature T of

                      (1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4

                      which gives T=255 K.

                      Yet T is actually 288 K. Why?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The Earth surface isn’t a black body.

                      The simplistic “(1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4” ignores heat storage in the oceans, latent heat and compressed atmosphere.

                      The simplistic “(1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4” misses how hot the surface of land, rocks, buildings get during the day.

                      The temperature predicted by the simplistic “(1-a)S/4 = epsilon*sigma*T^4” presumes equilibrium under conditions not present. There is not only no equilibrium, there isn’t even a steady state. Solar energy received by the Earth varies, and is released at varying times ranging from instantaneous to thousands of years.

                      The “average surface temperature” is a meaningless value that ignores heat.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The Earth is a blackbody in the frequencies that count, the IR.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, the oceans definitely aren’t anything like a black body, or even a grey body, and they cover over 70% of the surface.
                      The ocean surface temperature is not a function of energy entering or leaving it is a function of vapor pressure. In the low latitudes, water vapor drives convection and transports heat to the upper troposphere.
                      This applies to some extent to land areas, also.

                      Surface cooling by radiation (the kind of cooling that relies on grey body or black body temperature) is only about 11% of the cooling. The rest is by evaporation and convection/advection.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “No, the oceans definitely aren’t anything like a black body, or even a grey body, and they cover over 70% of the surface.”

                      To a good first approximation, the Earth is a blackbody in the infrared. It certainly radiates as a blackbody. For detailed calculations one abandons this simplistic assumption and solves the two-stream equations, which are general.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What do you mean by “It certainly radiates as a blackbody”? How would it radiate if it were a grey body?

                      Is radiation the only form of heat transfer you are aware of?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “How would it radiate if it were a grey body?”

                      You should know the answer to that, if you know what a grey body is.

                      Time to call up on your great knowledge of physics….

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Non responsive, as usual.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Time for you to answer a question.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The answer you’re trying to find is: Yes, grey bodies radiate.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Can a grey body can radiate the same as a black body that is at some temperature lower than the temperature of the grey body?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Surface cooling by radiation (the kind of cooling that relies on grey body or black body temperature) is only about 11% of the cooling. The rest is by evaporation and convection/advection.”

                      Wrong — it dominates. See Trenberth’s energy balance diagram:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00bd4d9d5069169e29141399376169f587c5b6789b4278506410658134048323.jpg

                    • DavidAppell

                      Instead of countering you on the physics again and again, I’m far more interested in this question: how is it you think you are right and 10s of thousands of scientists over the last century+ are wrong?

                      How did you reach that point?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You haven’t countered anything yet.
                      Science wasn’t always as corrupted as what apparently passes for science to you.

                      I was first introduced to the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” by my Biology professor, in the early ’70s. I asked “how” then, and regularly since. Still no answer.

                      The nonsense has been fueled by authoritarians of all stripes eager to seize the opportunity to tax, and willing to dole money to compliant useful takers in academia for sciency sounding agitprop.

                      It obviously worked on you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “I was first introduced to the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” by my Biology professor, in the early ’70s. I asked “how” then, and regularly since. Still no answer.”

                      And you’re too lazy to go read about it for yourself?

                      Seriously, this is trivial: the Earth emits infared radiation, and CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb it. They then re-emit it in a random direction, some of which goes downward and warms the surface.

                      What’s keeping you from understanding this? And how can you have an opinion on global warming if you don’t understand the most basic part of the science?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      No, this is not trivial.

                      There is no physical theory that supports “the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb it. They then re-emit it in a random direction, some of which goes downward and warms the surface.” The only radiation from the atmosphere with any ability to increase surface temperature comes from latent heat released as water vapor condenses, and this mostly only slows surface temperature decay.

                      The “greenhouse effect” is a hypothesis formed through a misapplication of information gained from a myopic irrelevant perspective. Its existence is supported mainly by the clever fiction that average solar insolation that strikes the surface should determine average surface temperature, and that since the average measured surface temperature is 33+ deg C higher than the value thus reached, the difference must be due to back radiation.

                      The problems with this fiction are the solar energy received isn’t constant or uniform. It doesn’t consider the surface temperatures reached and solar energy stored as sensible heat and especially solar energy stored as latent heat during the day that is released sometime later and likely at a different location.

                      Can you offer any physical evidence the ,”greenhouse effect” exists, or are you going to continue to insist in zombie like fashion that randomly re-emitted infrared radiation and not the Sun is what should determine average surface temperature?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “There is no physical theory that supports “the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb it.”

                      1) Does the Earth emit infrared radiation?

                      2) Does CO2 absorb infared radiation?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Hello zombie.

                      Here are the answers to your two questions:

                      1) Yes.

                      2) Yes.

                      So what?

                      Can you explain how either is anything but a result of Earth’s surface temperature?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Good. Now

                      3) What happens to the heat radiation that atmospheric CO2 absorbs?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Mostly, it gets shared kinetically with the 2500 or so molecules of other gases that are near by.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Mostly, it gets shared kinetically with some of the 2500 or so molecules of other gases that are nearby.”

                      Do you know what physics calls that? An increase in the atmosphere’s temperature.

                      Ha ha.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      And the question remains.

                      How much?

                      But, here is another question for you.

                      Does heated air rise?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You’ve already agreed that CO2’s absorption of IR increases the atmosphere’s temperature.

                      That’s huge.

                      Now, how would you got about calculating how much of a temperature increase is caused by a certain increase in atmo CO2? Think.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Not so fast. How do you get “huge” from something that is minuscule, and most likely imperceptible?

                      You have still not answered the first question.

                      How can a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere have any measurable warming effect on Earth’s surface?

                    • DavidAppell

                      I said your admission was “huge.” Read harder.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Explain once.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      How so? The colder atmosphere still doesn’t warm the surface.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “How can a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere have any measurable warming effect on Earth’s surface?”

                      Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of mulitiple targets on the side of a barn.

                      There are N targets, each of area A.

                      Does your probability of hitting a target depend only on N?

                      No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.

                      It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering A and the product N*A. And CO2 has a large A.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Irrelevant Bullshit!

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What are you trying to say?

                      You already agreed that the energy added by IR to CO2 gets shared kinetically with some of the 2500 or so molecules of other gases that are nearby, so that CO2 can’t radiate back at a higher temperature.

                      But you are the one who thinks there is enough cold downwelling radiation from CO2 or some such thing to warm the surface.

                      So you need to explain how you think the colder atmosphere can do this,

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I wouldn’t, because it is insignificant and irrelevant. If you think CO2 warms the surface, explain how.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I wouldn’t, because it is irrelevant and insignificant. But, if you think it is significant, you show the calc.

                      Hint: Take the amount of energy added to the CO2 (T^4surf -T^4CO2 molecule) X consts, and divide it up amongst the other 2500 + 1CO2 molecules, then divide the increase in hea by specific heat of (other molecules + 1CO2) molecule to calculate temp.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Use your physics expertise…..

                    • DavidAppell

                      “But, here is another question for you.
                      Does heated air rise?”

                      I am sure you can answer this question for yourself.

                      Planes fly at about 30,000 ft. Is the atmosphere there warmer than it is at the surface?

                      Why or why not?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Why can’t you stay with the subject and answer a question? Is it ADD?

                      The air temperature colder at 30K ft. but its potential temperature might be close to the same and could even be warmer. But that has nothing to do with radiation.

                      I’ll address why, only after you answer the questions I have already asked. You can start with “Does heated air rise?.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You asked if heated air rises?

                      Can’t you address this question using your own expertise in physics? If it does, why is the atmosphere colder at 30,000 ft than it is at sea level?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You can start with “Does heated air rise?.”

                      You keep telling me you have great expertise in physics, and then you keep asking me basic questions.

                      Why?

                      Why is the atmosphere colder at 30 kft than at the surface?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I keep asking you, because so far you your responses suggest that you are just an idiot troll, probably paid, with no interest in understanding Atmospheric Physics.

                      The 30K ft. air isn’t being compressed by the weight of air above it as much as the air at the surface.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The 30K ft. air isn’t being compressed by the weight of air above it as much as the air at the surface.”

                      Then why do temperatures rise in the stratosphere, compared to the tropospause?

                      Or are you saying heated air doesn’t always rise?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      There isn’t much air up there above the stratosphere, so collisions between molecules are rare. Molecules can reach very high velocities which on a per molecule basis translates to high temperature. There also isn’t much heat.

                      But you are shifting goalposts again, get back to the troposphere, troll, and answer the questions in the context they were asked. The CO2 molecule absorbs some IR and heats the 2500 other molecules around it. You said Physics calls that an increase in temperature. I agree, but is it relevant to whether CO2 radiation contributes to surface temperature?

                      I asked how much and whether it would be hotter than the surface, and also asked if heated air rises.

                      So far you are batting zero.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “There also isn’t much heat.”

                      You need to learn the difference between heat and temperature.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What makes you think that? There is too little mass to have much heat.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The mass density above the stratosphere is too low for the atmosphere to have much heat. What makes you think otherwise?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The mass density above the stratosphere is too low for the atmosphere to have much heat.”

                      It doesn’t contain much heat, but a portion of the stratosphere is warmer than some portions of https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a81ed7686cefb84bdb35008f535be35e8e36f12297ce7a09620cd56d6c0f45f4.jpg the troposphere.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So, I think that agrees with what I said before.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You said Physics calls that an increase in temperature. I agree, but is it relevant to whether CO2 radiation contributes to surface temperature?”

                      Answer your own question: if the atmosphere gains heat, does it warm the surface?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Not if the surface is still at a higher temperature.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “….and also asked if heated air rises.”

                      You’ve said you have expertise in physics, degrees and awards and all that.

                      So I’m asking you to put your expertise to work and answer your own questions. If heated air rises, why is the upper troposphere cooler than the surface?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The few molecules of air out of the ~2500 that get warmed slightly by our CO2 molecule that intercepted the radiation will become slightly more energetic and increase local pressure slightly which will cause some displacement which will encounter less resistance above, than below, so they will rise. As they rise, they gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy. When they reach the altitude where their energy is less than the other air molecules around them, they sink. After a few passes they find their place amongst molecules of equal energy.

                      Air at the top of the troposphere cools and its water vapor either condenses or freezes becoming very dense, possibly dense enough to not be overtaken by rising air from below, in which case it becomes rain snow. If it is overtaken by rising air, it will remain suspended in a visible cloud and either cool to space or be warmed by the Sun.

                      The dry air near the top of the troposphere eventually loses enough energy and sinks. As it does, it trades its potential energy for kinetic, and its temperature increases continuously to the surface.

                      Can you explain physically how and by how much a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes Earth’s surface temperature to change?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Bzzzzzzzt. Rising air loses energy (hence temperature) by doing the work of expansion, because there’s less pressure aloft.

                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-heat-rises-why-does-th/

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Couldn’t it get pushed up by denser air settling around it?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Couldn’t it get pushed up by denser air settling around it?”

                      Answer your own question, and compare it to reality, since you like to tout your qualifications in physics…..

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You are the one who claims authority from his degree in Physics. I’m sure you do have some degree, possibly even an advanced degree.

                      You called me a liar and claimed that I had never taken even one course in physics. Now, because I told you that was incorrect you are going to claim that I tout my qualifications.

                      There is a word for people like you, but it doesn’t excuse your style, allow your substitution of insults or change of subject, in lieu of an honest answer to the questions asked. Your continued failure to engage in any detailed discussion must only mean that you don’t really understand how your hypothesis works either.

                      Does sinking air compress? Does rising air have to do work if it is being displaced?

                      There is no theory of how surface warming would result from CO2 in the atmosphere, and there is real evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t controlled by human emissions.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “There is no theory of how surface warming would result from CO2 in the atmosphere….”

                      Wrong, of course, You just don’t understand the theory, so you think there is none, because you think you know everything.

                      I’d still like to know how you justify thinking you’re right and 100 years of tens of thousands of scientists are wrong. Talk about an ego!

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Can you explain physically how and by how much a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes Earth’s surface temperature to change?”

                      This is what scientists have been calculating since 1896!

                      Are you honestly now aware of the magnitude of work done to calculate CO2’s climate sensitivity??? I find that impossible to believe.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Please don’t make me puke. The only thing they have done is try to correlate temperature with CO2. That worked for a while, then they had to start adjusting temperatures to agree.

                      The ghg hypothesis was not widely accepted until the ’90s. There is a physical explanation for surface temperature that does not involve “back radiation” from “ghg’s”.

                      The simplistic multi layer radiation nonsense ignores how convection, and transport of heat, especially latent heat, with mass,

                      How can anyone even imagine the ocean surface as a black body?

                      I saw a notice relatively recently from Scientific American (could have been a couple yrs ago), that they had finally digitized issues from the ’60s & 70’s. I cancelled my subscription several years before, so I couldn’t check to see if “The Circulation of the Upper Atmosphere” by Reginald E Newell, Sci. Am. Mar ’64 was available online.
                      If you have access to it, you might find it interesting. I still have the hard copy. (I used it as reference material for my 7th grade science paper.)

                      I also have the “Scientific American Cumulative Index 1948 to 1978” in which I find the first and only article listed under the topic “greenhouse effect” was an alarmist piece in January ’78 by George Woodwell. I had the displeasure of interacting with some early “ghe” modelers 1n ’79 while I was in law school. The grant money corruption had begun.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “That worked for a while, then they had to start adjusting temperatures to agree.”

                      Do you understand why the raw data need adjusting?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The ghg hypothesis was not widely accepted until the ’90s.”

                      Really??? I’m sure you can’t prove that.

                      In fact, the first realization of the greenhouse effect came from Fourier (yes, that Fourier) in 1827:

                      “On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).

                      It’s an interesting paper; you should read it. An English translation is here:

                      http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I didn’t say the ghg hypothesis was first suggested in the “90s. Can you prove it was widely accepted before that? Do you even know what I meant by widely accepted?

                      The only thing I found interesting in the paper was that Fourier incorrectly attributed warmth from clouds to redirected IR.

                      Other than that, Connolly’s over abundance of comments made it a less than pleasant read.

                      Did you see if you could find the Mar. ’64 Scientific American article?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “I didn’t say the ghg hypothesis was first suggested in the “90s. Can you prove it was widely accepted before that? Do you even know what I meant by widely accepted?”

                      The greenhouse effect was accepted in the 19th century.

                      You are flat-out wrong. Learn some history — start with reading Spencer Weart’s book, “The Discovery of Global Warming.”

                      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

                    • BigWaveDave

                      In an RC post in 2008, David Archer claimed the first use of the term “global warming” was in a 1975 paper. I know that I heard it had been brought up at the 1st Earth Summit that started “Earth Day”, but I also know that it wasn’t a main stream or widespread belief.

                      Have you found and read the article in Mar. 64 Scientific American by Reginald Newell that I suggested?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why does it matter when the term “global warming” was first used? Earlier scientists clearly knew that industrial CO2 would warm the planet. Here is a big list of such papers and reports:

                      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You are the one who wanted to make a big deal of it.

                      The popular nonsense that there is a serious threat from CO2 because of “global warming” is a relatively recent development.

                      Your list of garbage with false misleading information says nothing about how popular their stupid notions were when the garbage came out.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The popular nonsense that there is a serious threat from CO2 because of “global warming” is a relatively recent development.”

                      Are you claiming that knowledge and understanding can’t change with time.

                      Once few people thought smoking was harmful. Then later lots of them did. Now everyone does.

                      Are you saying that first impressions are always right and can never be changed?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Your parade of straw men won’t warm the planet either, even if they are on fire, and anyway, what makes you think only a few people thought smoking was harmful? It was common knowledge in the 50’s, and from a SA 100 yrs ago articles in the 90’s, it was known in the 1890’s.

                      What I am saying is that the notion of “greenhouse gasses” warming Earth’s surface is and has always been nonsense, and that younger generations have been systematically mislead to believe the nonsense by charlatans promoting a political agenda.

                      The fact is that there is no physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, or any kind of proof that cold warms hot.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “What I am saying is that the notion of “greenhouse gasses” warming Earth’s surface is and has always been nonsense”

                      Why?

                      1) Does the Earth emit infrared radiation?
                      2) Do atmospheric greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You keep asking the same stupid irrelevant questions that I have already answered.

                      Why can’t you present a theory?

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’m not interested in playing around. You can’t answer these questions. Why not? What does it say about your misconceptions of physics?

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Why can’t you present a theory?”

                      I have, many times. If you are going to keep playing dumb games like this, I’m through with you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 K than can be accounted for by the Sun?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      It isn’t. Your misconception results from your myopic view of the situation. There is no instantaneous equilibrium balance of in and out.

                    • DavidAppell

                      It isn’t? Prove that — with science and math.

                      I dare you.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Sorry, you are too stupid to follow it, because it involves more than two steps.

                      The fact that you can offer nothing that proves the idiotic idea that cold warms hot says it all.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You don’t have any science or any math. Dumb. This stuff is covered in the beginning of any climate science course or textbook.

                      You don’t know any of it.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I enjoy a good debate, especially one where ideas are discussed and I can learn something, but there’s no point in wasting time trying to correspond with someone who makes no attempt to offer any testable theory of their bog-standard belief, and who replies with only obfuscation and insult immediately, when any competing hypothesis or theory is presented.

                      If your only goal is to waste my time in this lonely corner of the webs, to what or whom do I owe this honor? Did you get a grant to become a climate troll? How much are they paying you? Do they pay you by the hour, number of comments replied to, number of words, … or what? Have you been doing it long?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “…there’s no point in wasting time trying to correspond with someone who makes no attempt to offer any testable theory of their bog-standard belief…”

                      AGW leaves all kinds of footprints on the climate, about which you know nothing, and won’t go learn about.

                      Here are two of the clearest signatures of AGW that I know of:

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

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

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

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “AGW leaves all kinds of footprints on the climate, about which you know nothing, and won’t go learn about.”

                      First, you need to demonstrate that AGW exists. Otherwise what could leave the print?
                      If you think there is anything in the any where in the three sources you cite, explain what they presented, and how it shows there is AGW. Otherwise, you have only proved my point. You have no clue.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “First, you need to demonstrate that AGW exists.”

                      Trivial — simply use an orbiting satellite to capture the electromagnetic energy radiated by the planet at the top of its atmosphere — its intensity as a function of frequency. One get this:

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f93c940e9f2343330b3d1ba5d95d008fdb475fcdbd7983c5d764d9b0e70f3e0f.gif

                    • DavidAppell

                      Given the Sun’s irradiance, the Earth-Sun distance, and the Earth’s albedo, what is your calculation for the mean temperature of the Earth, to first-order?

                      Be sure to show your work, as they say.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I’ve answered this more than once, It isn’t.

                      Why do you insist on asking the same stupid questions, instead of presenting a theory?

                    • DavidAppell

                      No, you have no answered it. You gave some bullsh*t hand waving argument that made no sense.

                      Do you know how to do physics and how to calculate things? I’ve seen no evidence that you do.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Oops, it’s 60 F, not 60 K. The greenhouse effect is about 30 K.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 [K C] than can be accounted for by the Sun?”

                      It is bog standard stuff. You presume the entire globe is a black body receiving a uniform share of insolation (1/4 zenith) which would only heat the surface to a temperature that is about 33 deg. C less than the average of twice daily readings from some thermometers in various places around the globe a little above land, and a little below the ocean surfaces. You find the location with a temperature closer what was calculated from average insolation somewhere near the top of the troposphere, and attribute the difference to “greenhouse gasses back radiating IR from the atmosphere”.

                      The problem with the uniform 1/4 zenith insolation is that it bears no resemblance to the the actual pattern and intensities of insolation, and the surface, especially the ocean surface does not behave as a black body, and radiation is not the primary mode of heat transfer from the surface.

                      It is 33+ deg C warmer at the surface than the average temperature Earth radiates to space because the atmosphere, surface and oceans collect, convert, store, transport deliver and reject the solar energy that is received variably and non uniformly with various combinations of conduction, convection, transport of mass containing heat and radiation processes.

                      The radiating gasses play their biggest role at the top of the troposphere where they radiate to space at a temperature closer to that calculated for the uniform 1/4 zenith insulation.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Why is the Earth’s surface about 60 [K C] than can be accounted for by the Sun?”

                      A change of 60 K = a change of 60 C.

                      And you say you have expertise in physics????

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Yes, I meant F, and was only trying to include your change in the quote.

                      It isn’t surprising though, that you believe typing is an essential part of Physics.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The problem with the uniform 1/4 zenith insolation is that it bears no resemblance to the the actual pattern and intensities of insolation, and the surface, especially the ocean surface does not behave as a black body, and radiation is not the primary mode of heat transfer from the surface.”

                      This is basic, basic physics — the factor of 1/4 comes from the ratio of Earth’s surface area, across which solar heating is spread, to the cross-sectional area on which sunlight is absorbed.

                      The resulting basic basic equation for the Earth’s average surface temperature is

                      (1-albedo)(solar irradiance)/4 = (sigma)*(temperature^4).

                      => T = 255 K = – 18 C = 0 F.

                      Again, this is covered in the first chapter of all textbooks on climate.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      And this adds or detracts from my argument how?

                      With “(1-albedo)(solar irradiance)/4 = (sigma)*(temperature^4).

                      => T = 255 K = – 18 C = 0 F”

                      are you not averaging by dividing by 4 the zenith insolation reaching the surface to calculate a temperature?.

                      If the only form in which you can accept something is the form with which you are familiar, it confirms my observation that you don’t think, you only repeat. Correct? (Refute with caution. You might be able to this in your defense some day.)

                      It is not surprising that you made no attempt to address anything of substance.

                    • DavidAppell

                      My calculation is correct. (It’s been known for over a century.) The factor of 1/4th comes from the area of which the sun’s energy delivery is distributed (4*pi*R^2) to the cross-sectional area of its delivery (pi*R^2).

                      If you think this is wrong, explain why, and give your own equation.

                    • Robert

                      I think BigWaveDave would be better able to explain that whoooooosh he heard when that went…..

                    • DavidAppell

                      “…because the atmosphere, surface and oceans collect, convert, store, transport deliver and reject the solar energy…”

                      And how does all this collecting and rejecting work?

                      All you’ve written is gobbleygook with no scientific content whatsoever.

                      None.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The fact is that there is no physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, or any kind of proof that cold warms hot.”

                      You are refusing to answer my four questions. Because you know what conclusion they imply.

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Is any of this relevant to the question? Explain how cold heats hot.

                      If there is a physical theory to support the “greenhouse gas” myth, why can’t you state it?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Explain how cold heats hot.”

                      I already have, and you know it.

                      Answer these questions:

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You don’t read the links I put up. Why should I read yours?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      There you go, calling me a liar again. I didn’t post a link, but I did suggest a paper that might give you some insight.

                      It seems clear from your responses that you have no interest in or desire to learn how anything works,

                      You are more likely paid to memorize and promote propaganda.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I didn’t call you a liar. I wrote, “You don’t read the links I put up.” And you clearly don’t, because you are unaware of the information in them, like why we know the buildup of atmospheric CO2 is due to man.

                    • BigWaveDave
                    • DavidAppell

                      Salby has no credibility. He was fired from his last job. I don’t think he ever found another one.

                      Nobody believes or respects Murray Salby. Sorry.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The “shoot the messenger” defense, eh? And, you accuse me of not being sceptical.

                      You are either too stupid to listen to any views not blessed by the cult or you are afraid you might learn something that could jeopardize your gravy flow.

                      Explain how it can be that anthropogenic CO2 production has increased nearly four fold, but there has been virtually no change in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Explain how it can be that anthropogenic CO2 production has increased nearly four fold, but there has been virtually no change in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

                      Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing exponentially.

                      See: the Keeling Curve.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1694608c44b242a9c62c48dc81d7b814d4fb7397719398545633a036c1df00c2.png

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Explain how it can be that anthropogenic CO2 production has increased nearly four fold”

                      Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

                      Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. Now it’s 408 ppm.

                      That isn’t a 4-fold increase.

                      Admit you were wrong.

                    • DavidAppell

                      No, it’s not “shoot the messenger” — Salby is wrong, has usually been wrong, and as a consequence has no standing in the scientific community.

                      Your biggest problem is that you are not sufficiently skeptical.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      A bigger problem seems to be that you have the impression that you know something. So far, all you have shown is that you are gullible and need no proof or understanding to take sides with a position that you have been told is science. You continue to confirm the obvious truth of this with your refusal to offer any sort of proof.

                      Dr. Salby’s analysis shows that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 does not follow anthropogenic emissions. Instead of finding something in his analysis that is false, you instead attack the person, then claim you aren’t shooting the messenger. Why? Is it because he was already shot by your boss?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Salby is wrong. I’m not going to waste my time laying that all out for you (someone who never reads anything anyway) all that is wrong with Salby’s claims. Such stuff is all over the Web, if you had the gumption to go look for it.

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
                      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/salby-again/
                      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/denier-weirdness-defending-indefensible.html

                      There is a reason none of Salby’s claims appear in the scientific literature.

                      You clearly swallow absolutely anything as long as it agrees with your biases and misunderstandings.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You are either too stupid to listen to any views….”

                      I have listened to your points and countered them, time and time again.

                      I’ve asked questions about the consequences of your claims that you flat-out refuse to even address.

                      You’re the one copping out here.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “I’ve asked questions about the consequences of your claims that you flat-out refuse to even address.”

                      Like what?

                      You haven’t countered anything.

                      All you have presented is a demonstration that you have no clue how radiation is thermalized in a gas, and that you think you are educated and smart, and that the 2LoT supports your belief that cold warms hot.

                      Give one example where cold warms hot by radiation in real life, or STFU dilettante.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Give one example where cold warms hot by radiation in real life….”

                      I’ve proven that conclusion by using logical argument built from fundamental, well-established physical principles.

                      Even you recognize that.

                      An example: Earth. Venus. Mars. All have colder atmospheres that keep the surface warmer that it would be without those atmospheres.

                      As I just wrote a minute ago, this is easily proved via satellite measurements.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Can you give a real life example that shows a situation where cold warms hot by radiation, please?

                      The phenomena you describe are well explained by kinetic gas theory, and not by the multi layer radiation nonsense you believe.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You don’t get to ignore highly relevant questions.
                      Your ignored my questions, such as your justification for your answers to #3 and #4 (“Not necessarily”) of my four fundamental questions:

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The logical disconnect in 3 presumes absorption where only net loss occurs.

                    • DavidAppell

                      What logical disconnect in 3?

                      You said #3 was “not necessarily true.” When it is not true?

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

                    • VooDude

                      Dr Salby – Respect, credibility – irrelevant. What matters is, that he is right.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I don’t know of a single scientist who thinks Salby is right.

                      If he was right he could get tenure somewhere. He can’t even get a position.

                    • VooDude

                      http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/
                      “The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.

                      Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach.”

                      Plus the financial ‘misconduct’ …
                      Apparently, he was blatantly in defiance of ‘orders’ … who would give tenure, or even an academic position, to a flagrant, disobedient employee?

                      He’s written textbooks endorsed by universities.
                      “The first edition is a classic. As a textbook it is unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity. It is the single volume that I recommend to every one of my students in atmospheric science. The new edition improves over the previous edition, if that is possible at all, in three aspects: beautiful illustrations of global processes … from newly available satellite data, new topics of current interest … and a new chapter on the influence of the ocean on the atmosphere. These changes make the book more useful as a starting point for studying climate change.” – Professor Yuk Yung, California Institute of Technology

                      ” … an informative and insightful tour through the contemporary issues in the atmospheric sciences as they relate to climate. … a valuable resource for educators and researchers alike, serving both as a textbook for the graduate or advanced undergraduate student with a physics or mathematics background and as an excellent reference and refresher for practitioners. … a welcome addition to the field.” – Professor Darin W. Toohey, University of Colorado at Boulder</b.

                      " … an essential reference for researchers and graduate and advanced undergraduate students who wish to have a rigorous source for a wide range of fundamental atmospheric science topics. Atmospheric and climate scientists will find this book to be an essential one for their libraries." – Associate Professor Hampton N. Shirer, Pennsylvania State University

                      “I recommend it as a foundation for anyone who wants to do research on the important open questions about aerosols, radiation, biogeochemisty, and ocean-atmosphere coupling.” – Professor Jim McWilliams, University of California, Los Angeles”

                      http://www.cambridge.org/ca/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/physics-atmosphere-and-climate-2nd-edition

                    • DavidAppell

                      Salby has no credibility. If he had, he wouldn’t be unemployed.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Have you found and read the article in Mar. 64 Scientific American by Reginald Newell that I suggested?”

                      This is from on obit of Newell: “As a professor, Newell focused on climate problems and the factors controlling mass climatic fluctuations, as well as on the physics of the ice ages. In his early work on global warming, Newell studied the effects of changing carbon dioxide concentrations on atmospheric heating rates and on the global circulation of carbon monoxide.”

                      http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N64/64obit.64n.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      So, rather than see what he said about the atmosphere, you’ll go with propaganda from a pal.

                      I’m certainly not surprised, as this is typical behavior for cult members such as yourself. You will take whatever steps necessary to avoid any discussion of the science, because you know your position will fall apart.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The Newell papers I’ve cited clearly show that Newell accepted CO2-warming.

                    • DavidAppell

                      But enough of Newell. Let’s get back to your claim that a colder body doesn’t warm a warmer body…..

                      Which of the four simple pieces of physics I cited do you think are wrong?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Any part that says cold is going to heat hot.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Any part that says cold is going to heat hot.”

                      How does radiation know whether it is going to cold or hot?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Any part that says cold is going to heat hot.”

                      So which of these four pieces of basic physics is wrong then?

                      1. Do “cold” objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does that EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When that EM radiation is absorbed by a “warm” object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When that object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • DavidAppell

                      When radiation is emitted from a cold object, how does it know not to strike a warm object in its path?

                      Does it do U-turn and go back to where it came from?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      How much warmer can your cold object make the warm object, and also, what “objects” in the atmosphere are you talking about?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “How much warmer can your cold object make the warm object…”

                      Depends on the temperature of the cold object. The physics is easy to work out.

                      You are still avoiding pointing out which of these four basic laws of physics are wrong, if you think cold objects can’t warm warm objects:

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      1) If they are warmer than 0K, yes.
                      2) It is energy
                      3) Not necessarily
                      4) Not necessarily

                    • DavidAppell

                      #1 and #2 are right. But let’s review your answers to #3 and #4. #3 first:

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

                      your A: “Not necessarily”

                      When doesn’t an absorbing object gain the energy of that which it absorbed?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Now #4:

                      Q: “When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?”

                      your A: “Not necessarily?

                      When doesn’t an object’s temperature increase after it absorbs energy?

                    • DavidAppell

                      If cold objects can’t warm warm objects, why do you sleep under a blanket at night?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      When I sleep with a blanket it is to keep the air from carrying heat from my body by convection.

                      Do you sleep with a blanket, too? Why?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      When I sleep under a blanket it is usually to prevent air flow from carrying away my body heat.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “When I sleep under a blanket it is usually to prevent air flow from carrying away my body heat.”

                      Are you saying it reduces your body’s heat loss?
                      And that keeps you at a higher temperature?

                      That’s the same thing a colder object does to a warmer object!!

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The subject was not Newell, it was how the atmosphere works, which is a subject area about which you seem to be very clueless.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Climate science knows well how the atmosphere works. Greenhouse gases are a very big part of that — in fact, they are the second largest influence on the Earth’s climate.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Apparently climate science doesn’t know how the atmosphere works well enough to explain it to you, or to offer you any help in being able to explain anything that proves “[greenhouse gasses] are the second largest influence on the Earth’s climate”.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Apparently climate science doesn’t know how the atmosphere works well enough to explain it to you, or to offer you any help in being able to explain anything that proves “[greenhouse gasses] are the second largest influence on the Earth’s climate”.”

                      Why do you keep saying I haven’t answer this question, when you know I’ve answered it several times now?

                      Seriously, I would appreciate an honest answser……

                    • DavidAppell

                      And you still haven’t answered: what would the Earth’s average surface temperature be if it had no atmosphere?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Hotter than you think, overall. Similar to the moon, but the hypothetical is too imprecise with too many influential unknowns to give any specific answer.

                      Do you think Earth’s average surface temperature is a meaningful value?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Hotter than you think, overall.”

                      You didn’t the question. You didn’t give any analysis or numbers.

                      It’s clear now that you can’t give analysis or numbers.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Similar to the moon”

                      Similar to the moon!!

                      The moon’s average equatorial is 212 K, or -78 F.

                      Wow. Wanna try again?

                      Calculation:
                      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Do you think Earth’s average surface temperature is a meaningful value?”

                      It is if you can’t calculate it.

                    • DavidAppell

                      BTW, the Earth’s average global surface temperature was first calculated correctly in 1967:

                      “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259. Their model finds a climate sensitivity of 2.3 C.
                      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

                      I recommend that every student of science should read it — Manabe was an extremely clear writer.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Oops, look at this!

                      Geophysical Research Letters
                      Volume 4, Issue 1
                      January 1977
                      Pages 1–2

                      “A relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and Pacific sea surface temperature”

                      Reginald E. Newell, Bryan C. Weare

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL004i001p00001/abstract

                    • DavidAppell

                      That paper’s abstract:

                      “There is a spatial and a temporal correspondence between changes in Pacific sea
                      surface temperature and changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, after seasonal trends have been removed.”

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL004i001p00001/pdf

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I’m not going to spend any money to see what is in the paper you cite, so if there is something important that somehow proves CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the oceans, you should be able to relate that. But I have little doubt, that isn’t in the paper, so you won’t.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The point is, your fellow Newell knew well that CO2 creates warming. But he was wrong about how much warming it creates. (Again, no shame in that.)

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Your presumptions are incorrect. If my wrists feel up to it later, I might try to transcribe a few quotes for you.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Where did you ever get the idea that just because you can copy-and-paste what someone said, that means they are right?

                      This is why it’s clear you have a poor education in physics — you aren’t enough of a skeptic.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I didn’t. You mis-stated what professor Newell said, and I was almost willing to provide quotes.

                      But it is obvious that I am dealing with a being that has an attention span and the intellect comparable to that of a garden slug.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Stop avoiding. You don’t think cold objects impact warm objects. So tell me which of these four pieces of basic physics are wrong:

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • DavidAppell

                      Again, those four questions are:

                      1. Do all objects emit electromagnetic radiation?
                      2. Does EM radiation carry energy?
                      3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?
                      4. When an object absorbs energy, does its temperature increase?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      A pay walled paper that presents a correlation doesn’t address the underlying theory.

                      Water can gain heat without changing temperature.

                      Energy is also stored in life.

                      The “ghg” hypothesis ignores the physical processes that store and release energy and the dynamic activities these processes cause.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Pay for the paper, cheapskate, or go to your library, or as the author for a copy.

                      “The “ghg” hypothesis ignores the physical processes that store and release energy and the dynamic activities these processes cause.”

                      The greenhouse effect doesn’t “store and release energy.”

                      It’s like you are utterly incapable of learning. Or that you pretend you are stupid for ideological reasons — which is even dumber.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You are the idiot who can’t explain his own position.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “The greenhouse effect doesn’t “store and release energy.””

                      But the Earth, Oceans, atmosphere and life do store and release energy from insolation in various ways for varied durations at different locations.

                      The energy stored during daytime exposure to four times average insolation, doesn’t immediately leave the surface.
                      As in the case of coal, it could be millions of years before Solar energy received in one location is radiated to space from another location on Earth.
                      But, the typical delay is much less than a million years. A significant amount of daytime heat gain is stored for hours or days as latent heat in water vapor or water (where the colder phase is ice) before it is released to warm a local surface or the atmosphere and eventually radiated to space.

                      The energy stored during one day that doesn’t get released before the next day accounts for the calculated ~33K difference between Earth’s measured approximate surface temperature, and the hypothetical black body temperature of a dry surface receiving approximately average surface insolation.

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

                      Such a new quantum number would be absolutely shocking to every scientist alive today. Because there is no experimental proof of this. Or do you have such?

                    • DavidAppell

                      By the way, you have overlooked the possibility that Newell was wrong.

                      He was. (No shame in that in any way whatsoever.)

                      For example, he wrote

                      “The conclusion is that at low latitudes the influence of doubling CO2 on surface air temperature is less than 0.25 K, smaller by a factor of 8 than the findings generally accepted….
                      “It is not our intention to diminish the importance of the anthropogenic CO2 problem. In fact, if such different conclusions can be reached by different paths, it becomes even more important the problem in greater depth.”

                      — Newell and Dopplick, J App Meterology, June 1979
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018%3C0822%3AQCTPIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

                    • VooDude

                      “The greenhouse effect was accepted in the 19th century.”
                      Hutzpah! One of the papers you list on +CF states, in the intro, “At present, the sign of the low-level cloud feedback in climate change is unknown (2–5).” That’s a 2009 paper, Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback. If the sign is uncertain, questions about the magnitude are moot. Clouds contribute half of the albedo. “Global Warming” is small (¾W/m^2). Insolation is large (1361W/m^2). Less than 2⁄3 of one percent (0.6%) change of albedo is as large as all of ‘global warming’ … So, anybody who ascribed to this theory in the 19th and even 20th centuries – without knowing the sign of CF, let alone, the magnitude – is a fool. Way back in 1938, Callendar observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

                      Callendar, Guy Stewart 1938. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i2hp7mkq&s=5ca4636029afeea93cc59249acfa87a4df86d8f6

                      In 1988, Dr. Steven Schneider said “Clouds are an important factor about which little is known. When I first started looking at this in 1972, we didn’t know much about the feedback from clouds. We don’t know any more now, than we did, then.”

                      Global Warming Unchecked: Signs to Watch for By Harold W. Bernard, page 80.

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

                      Probst, P., et al 2012. “Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models.” Atmospheric Research

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

                      What is Pamela Probst, an Atmospheric Physicist, telling you? In a polite way, CMIP3 models haven’t got a clue about clouds … yet the required accuracy is less than 2% … so, how well do the CMIP5 models do? a factor of two … maybe double, maybe half …

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c016e2d04261e608b99b2108ae3fdf8e0c7b1a3a90a7a3e601bb2dc1e5549a5.jpg

                    • DavidAppell

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The greenhouse effect was accepted in the 19th century.”
                      “Hutzpah!”

                      The greenhouse effect has been known since Fourier in 1827:

                      See the top entry on this page:

                      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Oversimplification of the process description and apparent ignorance of essential process elements and how these omitted elements drive the the actual process.

                      Pierrehumbert admits a states in the introduction “In this book I have chosen to deal only with aspects of climate that can be treated without consideration of the fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere or Ocean.”, but there is more than that left out, it is a book full of fantasy based on ignorant assumptions. The title is misleading.

                      You can watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkUA98XSrTo in which Dr. David Archer and Dr. Raymond Pierrehumbert show off their ignorant presumptuous malthusian view of their misunderstanding of science as they present an overview of how they scare kids by teaching this crap as UChi.’s Phy-Sci 13400 .

                      Four minutes in, Archer starts by attributing the 1/4 received insolation “trick” to Fourier, and then describes his own ignorance and lack of background. Pierrehumbert said he learned his carbon cycle Cli-Sci from his partner, David Archer, a marine biochemist. Pierre winds up his talk promoting socialist redistribution economics.

                      The questions of responsibility are answered with neither a physical theory of how CO2 could cause warming, or any proof that human contributions to CO2 are the cause of any long term increase in atmospheric portion.

                      Their course is more like Poly-Sci, Sci-Fi or Poly-Sci-Fi. It offers no physical science.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Then Tyndall measured the absorption properties of greenhouse gases like water vapor and CO2 in 1861:

                      “On the Absorption and radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction,” John Tyndall, Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22, 169-194, 273-285 (1861).
                      http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What does this have to do with gasses in the open atmosphere?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “What does this have to do with gasses in the open atmosphere?”

                      Does IR from the Earth’s surface impact with GHG molecules in the atmosphere?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Sure, but we’ve been through this. The energy each “ghg molecule” picks up will get shared with and very slightly warm the ~2500 other non ghg molecules around it, which will cause a slight decrease in local density and accelerate their upward journey through the troposphere.

                      I know that you disagree because you believe that 2LoT dictates that colder molecules will warm the surface, but that is one of the major “how does that work?” questions that seems to be lacking a decent answer.

                      Do you have any real life examples of how 2LoT requires heat transfer from cold to hot?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The simplistic multi layer radiation nonsense ignores how convection, and transport of heat, especially latent heat, with mass,”

                      You are ill-informed. Here’s an early paper — notice how they handle convection:

                      “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259
                      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The simplistic multi layer radiation nonsense ignores how convection, and transport of heat, especially latent heat, with mass,”

                      Again, you are very poorly informed. See

                      “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,” V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley Jr., Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 16 no. 4 (Nov 1978).
                      http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf

                    • DavidAppell

                      I think I’ve shown that you are very poorly informed and repeatly make claims about history that are not true, and in fact easily shown to be false.

                      Getting so much wrong, why should anyone take you seriously?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      What physical theory have you offered to support the ridiculous claim that a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere causes noticeable warming of Earth’s surface?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “What physical theory have you offered to support the ridiculous claim that a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere causes noticeable warming of Earth’s surface?”

                      I”ve already stated it several times, and I’m not going to repeat it again because you can’t get it.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “There is a physical explanation for surface temperature that does not involve “back radiation” from “ghg’s”.”

                      Yeah? What is it?

                      (Did you really imagine I wouldn’t ask this obvious question about your claim? Do you not understand that in science one must defend their ideas?)

                    • Robert

                      I was going to get some popcorn, but I see bigwaveddave has momentum on the slippery slope of conspiracy. ….

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I have given most of it already.

                      Basically the Sun heats large parts of land surface to much higher temperatures than the average global average surface temperature, much of this heat is absorbed by air currents. The Sun adds heat to the oceans which gets distributed globally by ocean currents and by atmospheric transport of latent heat in water vapor, part of which forces the Hadley circulation.

                      The atmosphere loses heat at the top of the troposphere. Water vapor becomes liquid or solid, and falls. Air molecules loose enough energy to be denser than the air below, so they sink. The resulting displacement causes warmer air molecules to rise.

                      Some of the heat gain is lost before the next day, but not all of it. It is not an instantaneous uniform energy balance with a weak source.

                      Would you please quit the pedantic twit act?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Basically the Sun heats large parts of land surface to much higher temperatures than the average global average surface temperature….”

                      What about the large parts of the land surface that are *below* the average global surface temperature….?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You average them with the warmer areas.

                      The point is that there isn’t the instantaneous equilibrium balance that requires you to imagine cold warming hot.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You average them with the warmer areas.”

                      OMG!! Colder than average temperatures averaged with warmer than average temperatures = (!!!) the average temperature.

                      So your argument fails, because it only considers half the picture.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      “OMG!! Colder than average temperatures averaged with warmer than average temperatures = (!!!) the average temperature.”

                      Yeah, imagine that. You learn something every day.

                      “So your argument fails, because it only considers half the picture.”

                      What half of the picture do you think is missing? Are you sure it isn’t because you are looking with only half a brain?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “What half of the picture do you think is missing?”

                      Obviously: the part where temperatures change less than average!

                    • BigWaveDave

                      The few molecules of air out of the ~2500 that get warmed slightly by our CO2 molecule that intercepted the radiation will become slightly more energetic and increase local pressure slightly which will cause some displacement which will encounter less resistance above, than below, so they will rise. As they rise, they gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy. When they reach the altitude where their energy is less than the other air molecules around them, they sink. After a few passes they find their place amongst molecules of equal energy.

                      Air at the top of the troposphere cools and its water vapor either condenses or freezes becoming very dense, possibly dense enough to not be obvertaken by rising air from below, in which case it becomes rain snow. If it is overtaken by rising air, it will remain suspended in a visible cloud and either cool to space or be warmed by the Sun.

                      The dry air near the top of the troposphere eventually loses enough energy and sinks. As it does, it trades its potential energy for kinetic, and its temperature increases continuously to the surface.

                      Air at the top of the troposphere cools and its water vapor either condenses or freezes becoming very dense, possibly dense enough to not be overtaken by rising air from below, in which case it becomes rain snow. If it is overtaken by rising air, it will remain suspended in a visible cloud and either cool to space or be warmed by the Sun.

                      The dry air near the top of the troposphere eventually loses enough energy and sinks. As it does, it trades its potential energy for kinetic, and its temperature increases continuously to the surface.

                      Can you explain physically how and by how much a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes Earth’s surface temperature to change?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      It is cold at 30K ft, but hotter air still rises. When it is cool enough it falls.
                      You have as of yet described nothing physical to defend the “greenhouse hypothesis” you prefer instead to reply with insults. The problem is that you really haven’t a clue about what you are saying. You come off as pretty stupid to me.

                    • DavidAppell

                      Why is it you, with your expertise in physics, can’t go study these questions and figure out the answers for yourself?

                      Are you lazy, or just not interested in learning?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      You seem to be the only one who can’t answer a question.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The average kinetic energy of a gas particle is directly proportional to the temperature. An increase in temperature increases the speed in which the gas molecules move.”

                      http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Gases/Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases/Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases

                    • DavidAppell

                      “3) Mostly, it gets shared kinetically with some of the 2500 or so molecules of other gases that are nearby.”

                      Excellent. You just admitted that the heat radiation absorbed by CO2 is shared kinetically among the air molecules.

                      That’s an increase in the tempeature of the atmosphere (gas). Exactly right.

                      !!!!

                    • BigWaveDave

                      An insignificant and irrelevant increase, right?

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Please see mostly rewritten reply below..

                    • DavidAppell

                      You still didn’t answer the question: how is you, very much a nonexpert, think you know better than thousands and thousands of scientists all around the world?

                      What is your great insight that they are all missing?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Because it isn’t why the surface temperature is warmer than calculated Stephan-Bolzman equilibrium temperature with (Solar insolation)/4.”

                      It isn’t why?

                      Then what is why?

                      PS: Again, your equation is wrong, Mr. Honors-in-high-school.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Because it isn’t why the surface temperature is warmer than calculated Stephan-Bolzman equilibrium temperature with (Solar insolation)/4”

                      And what is that reason? Point me to your calculation of the correct average surface temperature of the Earth — something Manabe and Wetherald computed in 1967.

                    • DavidAppell

                      why is it “nonsense?”

                    • DavidAppell

                      “How is the redirected IR able to warm a warmer surface? ”

                      Seriously?? IR is heat. When an object like the surface of the Earth absorbs IR, it absorbs its energy, and warms.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “How much IR warming per CO2 increment should its redirected cause?”

                      This is what’s called “equilibrium climate sensitivity.” Ever hear of it?

                      Currently science puts ECS at 1.5-4.5 C per doubling of atmospheric CO2.

                    • DavidAppell

                      “You then ask if I have taken a course in Physics. Yes, many.”

                      I don’t believe you, or you wouldn’t be asking such trivial question.

                      Try to answer again, and please be honest — you’re anonymous, after all.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      I had honors Physics in HS, and was granted a BS with honors in Electrical Engineering and Math, and worked in a field dominated by heat transfer for 40yrs. You apparently haven’t learned anything beyond what you had in 7th grade.

                    • DavidAppell

                      No, you don’t have any honors in anything, else you’d know that IR radiation is heat and how it warms objects. Your ignorance here has been unbounded.

                    • BigWaveDave

                      Have you always been an idiot, or did something happen?

                    • DavidAppell

                      What did Arrhenius misunderstand, exactly?

                    • DavidAppell

                      “Explain exactly how and by how much CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the surface.”

                      Just asking this question shows you are a know-nothing.

                      Go read about “equilibrium climate sensitivity.”

            • BigWaveDave

              Well you probably would believe Fairies. They are every bit as likely as CO2, but the oceans are what keep most of the Earth at habitable temperatures through the night.

              • Dano2

                snicker

                Best,

                D

      • Debauche

        Dano – Perhaps, since you present yourself as such an expert, you can provide a list of our education credentials and places of employment in any field remotely connected with the issue. It would also help if you provided a listing of any and all scientific studies or papers you have done and a link to their respective published location. Perhaps you have seen the list I provided earlier, of scientists, astrophysicists, geologists, climatologists and numerous other related fields, who think your unproven theories are BuLLFLOP. So, to prove them wrong, please show us your credentials.

    • Brin Jenkins

      This is where you said it was easy, memory looses perhaps? You also use the term denialists, are you referring to the long ago WW2 event? You really are not worth the correspondence falling back on aggression to shout opposition down. Typical Bolshevik action.

    • Frank W Brown

      And you only have corrupted “computer models” to control your beliefs!

      • Dano2

        Comically false.

        Best,

        D

    • Harold Saive

      Wrong…IPCC science fraud and criminal abandonment of the scientific method is irreversibly confirmed
      in Tim Ball’s book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” – http://drtimball.co

      • Dano2

        Comical reference to snork Tim Ball hoot1 aside,

        IPCC science fraud and criminal abandonment of the scientific method is irreversibly confirmed

        comical hyperbole aside, [citation needed, a TimBall book is not a citation in civil society].

        Best,

        D

      • Goldminer

        See he’s resorting to faecal verbiage.

    • Harold Saive

      Already done. IPCC climate models and scare tactics have proved to be an enormous failure.

      • Dano2

        Not having any busting out of anything aside,

        IPCC climate models (sic) …have proved to be an enormous failure

        [citation needed]

        Best,

        D

      • Goldminer

        Don’t say that, Dano will spin violently and taking his own ideas so seriously that he might disappear up his own ass.

    • Debauche

      Why do we need to climb on your wagon to prove anything? 97.4% of the “Catastrophe” predictions for the past 25 years have all proved to be FALSE! We’re still waiting for the MILLIONS to be made refugees due to rising sea levels predicted to happen years ago. We’re still waiting for the entire melt of the Arctic Ice Cap and the resulting completely open seas predicted to occur ten years ago. There have been so many lies and exaggerations over the past 25 years it has gotten to the point where nothing the so called “warmists” say is even remotely credible. Being wrong 97.4% of the time is almost on par with my TV weather guesser.
      I hate to even bring this up but other than being a number rarely seen, what was the science that PROVES 400 ppm CO2 is dangerously high? Greenhouse plants love a CO2 enriched atmosphere. 400 ppm is a media derived number that has no evidentiary proof.

      • Dano2

        Gibberish resulting from not having any science in the education aside,

        97.4% of the “Catastrophe” predictions for the past 25 years have all proved to be FALSE

        [citation needed]

        the entire melt of the Arctic Ice Cap … predicted to occur ten years ago.

        [citation needed]

        Best,

        D

        • Debauche

          Dano2 – Citations? Try Google! You seem to have nothing better to do. Maybe then you can PROVE something rather than just offering up the same Kool Aid dosages.

          • Dano2

            No evidence for your assertions then. Got it.

            Best,

            D

    • Debauche

      “Denialists” don’t need any of that to feel safe in their belief. They just need to let the “warmists” rave on and continue to shoot themselves in the foot with an accuracy rate of being correct only 2.6% of the time. The bad part of that will be when the New World Order shuts down the power plants and we’re faced with blackouts… the result of which will be absolutely no change. Solar and wind now provide less than 5% of power need. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oops sorry, that didn’t happen but we have ‘proof’ it will next time.” Every time you clowns cry “wolf” it just reduces your credibility more and more until nobody believes what you have to say. Stop throwing “theory” around like it is the holy grail. Show me the PROOF, not theory based on other theory… and combine it with ONE prediction that is 100% accurate.

      • Dano2

        Right, no science to support the beliefs. We get it.

        Best,

        D

        • Debauche

          Back at ‘ya, Dano2.

    • Concerned

      Sorry Dano2, you are wrong. Most warmists cannot explain the greenhouse effect relative to earth that has significant convection and conduction mechanisms in addition to radiation. They do not have testable hypotheses for earth. They do not have equations and models that match measured results.
      They do just as you have done and make claims with no support.
      The only logical model that has been scientifically presented, fits both historical data and predictive data is that warming and cooling are both caused by variations in the sun and modifications to the electromagnetic fields of the solar system associated with the sun with the 206 year cycle being one of the most dominant. I am open to any new ideas and explanations, but they must cover much more than 1979 to present and explain why there has been no change in the last 18 years
      Please provide your references, explanations, and view the attached picture showing results of solar model that does not include any CO2 effects:

      • Dano2

        Tawdry conflation of scientists and ‘wermizt’ aside,

        False, false, false, comical.

        Let me know when that graph appears in a peer-reviewed journal.

        Best,

        D

        [Honest graph source]

        • Goldminer

          All I see are hockey sticks is that from Mann.

          • Dano2

            Poor thing – can’t get past standard graphs?

            Best,

            D

            • Goldminer

              More faecal verbiage.

              • Dano2

                So you can’t see standard graphs of the biosphere as anything but a totem. Got it.

                Best,

                D

    • Mr. Scholar

      Here is an article, which contains a hypothesis with scientific references and equations:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

      Here is another hypothesis with references to more scholarly articles and equations:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

      Here is an article with many models and 81 references:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

      Here is an essay which has models, equations, and links to more articles like it:
      http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=681

      Here is a list of over 30,000 scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs) who dissent with the IPCC’s assessment of climate change:
      http://petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

      Here is the summary of some of their peer-reviewed research, a 12-page document with many models and 132 references:
      http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

      Here is a list of 1350+ scientific papers supporting a skeptic’s opinion:

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

      Here is a list of papers showing that the sun has a significant influence on Earth’s climate:

      http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

      The reason I posted this is to show that it is not true that the only “denialists” or “skepticks/sceptics” are either idiots or part of “Big Oil” or funded by the Koch brothers. There is no legitimate debate about whether or not the climate is changing. There is no legitmate debate about whether or not the Earth warmed during the 20th century. There is legitimate debate, however, about how much man influences the climate. Even the IPCC has not agreed with what it published (the pre-final drafts from 1995 are different from the final publication, as it shows in the picture.) Here is a link to a leaked version of the IPCC’s fifth assessment:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
      My regards,

      Mr. Scholar

      • Dano2

        Fred Singer. Precious.

        Best,

        D

        • Mr. Scholar

          Precious? You may think so. It makes no difference to me.

          My regards,

          Mr. Scholar

          • Dano2

            I’d play it off too if I used such an obvious and well-known shill.

            Best,

            D

      • Robert
      • cunudiun

        Look at your links. Every single one is a notorious denier site, except for your chrono link, which seems to be on the up and up. This is a long list of abstracts related mostly to the solar influence on climate. Most do not deal with the relative importance of solar forcings versus CO₂, but a number of them do touch on that subject. A number of them are inconclusive and/or conclude with the need for further research. Some others recommend a downward revision of the IPCC’s median CO₂ climate sensitivity, while others do not. There are quite a large number of abstracts here, and I have not gone through them all, but I have not found one that suggests that solar activity plays a more dominant role than greenhouse gas emissions in the global warming of the last half-century. The authors of these papers appear to be legitimate scientists and not politically motivated contrarians, and so your inclusion of this link provides no evidence that “it is not true that the only “denialists” or “skepticks/sceptics” are either idiots or part of “Big Oil” or funded by the Koch brothers“. But it is good to see you making an effort to get out of your bubble. Finally, what is the point of posting a 20-year old image from the IPCC that obviously has been substantially revised since. That seems dishonest to me.

    • See page 2-4 (there are a bunch of tables on page 3) at the link provided below, where the IPCC admits:

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

      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

      So if CO2 is such a potent warming influence, why, during the recent years when there was so much more of it (not really, but I know AGW alarmists, it really wasn’t that big an increase in reality, though since it started from such a minuscule level , even though it is still at a minuscule level, some have been fooled into thinking it was) in the atmosphere, was the warming LESS than it was when there was less CO2 and the warming was GREATER? Seems if CO2 has ANY effect AGW ALARMISTS HAVE IT BACKWARDS because with more CO2 there was less warming and with less CO2 there was more warming!

      • Dano2

        Natural variation. PDO and AMO/AO in synch. 2014 warmest year and warmest ocean temps, now 2015, with record ocean heat, 2016 likely to be record warm on planetary surface.

        Do try harder.

        Best,

        D

  • Icarus62

    Let’s look at some facts:

    1: Global warming has accelerated in recent years, not slowed down.

    2: It’s a proven fact that human activity has become the dominant influence on global climate, and that we are responsible for all of the global warming of the last half century. The observed warming is now at least 5 standard deviations (5σ) outside the range that could have been caused by natural influences alone. In any scientific field, a 5σ result is regarded as a settled fact.

    3: The primary cause of anthropogenic global warming – our greenhouse gas production – is showing no sign of declining.

    4: The inertia of the climate system means that the warming we’re causing will continue for centuries to come.

    5: Earth’s history shows very clearly that each 1°C of global warming will eventually result in global sea level rise of around 20 metres.

    6: The rate of global sea level rise has already quadrupled in a century, and the doubling time for global ice melt is now less than 10 years, implying 1 metre of sea level rise by mid-century.

    7: Equilibrium temperature change for today’s 400ppm of CO₂ is at least 2.5°C of global warming above pre-industrial.

    8: Global incidence of extreme heatwaves has already increased by a factor of ten.

    9: Tropical storms are becoming more powerful and dangerous as the world continues to heat up. The damage they cause will be increasingly exacerbated by accelerating sea level rise.

    10: The Arctic is warming at over 1°C every 20 years, causing the rapid disappearance of Arctic sea ice, currently at -3,000km³ per decade.

    11: Ice caps and glaciers worldwide are shrinking fast, leading to the aforementioned sea level rise and endangering agriculture in regions which are irrigated by natural snow melt.

    12: The Earth has been losing sea ice at the average rate of 35,000km² per year since 1979. In fact the rate has accelerated, as it was -21,500km² per year from 1979 to 1996, but from 1996 to 2013 it averaged over double that value, at -50,500km² per year.

    Complacency and denial are a great disservice to humanity at this point. We should do our best to minimise the damage we’re causing to the climate, and adapt to the changes that are already inevitable.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Facts? There has been no significant warming for 18 years.

      I still have not seen evidence of CO2 as being a realistic cause, and opinion that is unexplained is not proof.

      I don’t know about the global incidence of heat waves increasing we in the UK woulds benefit from a little more.

      Really the only point I agree on is that we have changes and need to adapt, more woolly sweaters is a start.

      I can’t understand the panic, why do believers come onto a Climate realist blog without real proof of their views. Just parroting the industry mantra is a dis-service to your cause.

      • Icarus62

        The facts I cited are widely known and the evidence is freely available, but of course rejected by those who hate the truth.

        • DougS

          OK Iccy lets hear your favourite piece of EVIDENCE. No blabbering on about well known facts and logical fallacies.
          How’s life on the mountain top (to escape the rapidly rising sea levels) by the way – I’m not making this up folks!

        • Concerned

          Most of the “facts” you stated above are opinion and not supported by facts. It is NOT a proven fact that human activity has become the dominant influence; it is only an opinion or hypothesis. Most factual data shows the sun to be the dominant driver, but this could also be treated as opinion. Nearly all sea rise is related to the recovery from the Little Ice Age and sea rise has slowed in the last 10 years. In fact, nearly all Pacific islands show no problem or even a threat of a problem. Antarctica sea ice has grown as the Arctic sea ice has shrunk. They are out of phase with each other and the total sum of the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice are about constant and somewhat positive growth in the last 5 years. Neither storms, heat waves or droughts have changed much in the last 20 years, much less a 10X change. Who is feeding you this strange misinformation??

        • andersm0

          Whenever anyone asks a question on specifics and gets an answer of ‘it’s widely known’ demonstrates you are spouting pure faith-based opinion.

          • Icarus62

            Like I said, look at the evidence which is freely available. No faith needed.

            • andersm0

              The best evidence, all freely available from real world observations, is that none of the catastrophes predicted by models in the 1980s and 90s have occurred. The warming since the Little Ice Age is natural and that the supposed catastrophic global warming derived from human sources of CO2 is a figment of politicized science. Here are over 1350 peer-reviewed papers showing alternate and supportable hypotheses based on observed data that come from the real world, not a broken down computer model.

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

              • Icarus62

                Parroting the lies of the global warming denial scam just makes you look gullible.

                • andersm0

                  If there’s any parroting, it’s from you. Same tired old approach by the warmists. I have a solid science background in chemical engineering. I can interpret the data for myself. AGW science is political science full of tortured data and politically expedient conclusions to support a false hypotheses.

                  There’s a saying in the stock market, you can play short term sentiment but in the long term, never bet against the underlying fundamentals. AGW will lose in the long run. I hope you leave a journal of your beliefs so your descendents will know where you stood on the most widespread hoax in human history.

                  • Icarus62

                    If you could interpret the data yourself, then you would know that only anthropogenic forcings can account for the global warming of the last half century. You would know that we are responsible for around 0.8C of global warming, and that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate. If you don’t know these things, then you’re not as smart or as well read as you think you are.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Of course, if you really understand the mechanism please explain it.

      • Robert

        Source? “no significant warming for 18 years”

    • Ummm, what facts? More like blatant lies/misinformed opinion/pure ignorance!
      Warming has NOT accelerated – it has plateaued (which you’d expect had you an ounce of inkling about glacial cycles and where we are in the current inter glacial).
      It is NOT a fact that human activity has anything to do with warming as, since the industrial age in 19th century, there is NO even near-perfect correlation between our CO2 emissions and temperature increases. Besides, had you any inkling about science, you’d know that it is temperatures that drive CO2 output in nature – NOT the other way around (as also proven by Vostok data). Besides CO2 is the WEAKEST greenhouse gas in atmosphere and our (human) contribution of it to atmospheric gasses is roughly 0.08%.
      Sea level changes have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. It has to do with the melting of LAND based ice mass (i.e. glaciers). Almost all of the land ice has melted since the onset of the most recent inter glacial era. If you moron looked at historical sea level data by NOAA or others, you’d see that sea levels were rising very rapidly at the beginning and over the past century, have come to a practical halt (2 millimeters per year – meaning 1 meter in every 500 years even if the current rate persisted, which it won’t because a) there is not enough land ice left, and b) we are entering the next cooling phase)
      There are as many extreme cold snaps as heat waves. We just had the second coldest winter in a long, long time. We also have fewer extreme storms (hurricanes here in the eastern sea board) compared to anytime in the past hundred years.
      Arctic sea ice is cyclical in its extent. Yes there has been melting but that is also about to end with the next glacial coming. This has been going on for most of the 4 billion year history of earth and no enviro-Marxist imbecile can change these cycles. The fact that the Antarctic sea ice extent is the largest level should tell you that the changes are not uniform and there is also some truth to the tilt of the earth axis having changed (thus possibly affecting the northern hemisphere differently than the southern hemisphere)
      And NO, ice caps and glaciers are not melting fast. You lying imbeciles said that about the Himalayan glaciers and the Indian scientists proved you wrong!
      What is a great disservice to humanity are intellectual zeros like your ilk!

      • VooDude

        “…ice caps and glaciers are not melting fast…
        Well, Greenland’s melt is significantly geothermal, and Antarctica, as a whole, is not melting …

    • VooDude

      “Tropical storms are becoming more powerful and dangerous as the world continues to heat up.”

      Hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons are all less frequent, and less powerful.

  • Nuke Pro

    I will continue to mess with gullible folks, you in particular. Mess with the lies that you swallowed hook line and sinker.

    temperature has stalled for 19 years, but CO2 has continued its upward climb in a straight line. Basic stuff.

    Solar sun spots with a lag time, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,
    only 2 factors are used to explain 95% of temperature changes.

    All here Crokford

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/08/global-warming-real-information-from.html
    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/2013/12/calculated-meanglobal-temperatures-1610.html

    • Dano2

      Oopers.

      Best,

      D

      • Nuke Pro

        Climate gate is real. There is huge money involved, plus all the lies of the dying bronto nuclear industry.

        Slapping a NOAA sticker on a chart don’t not add credibility. lol

        • Dano2

          Slapping a NOAA sticker on a chart don’t not add credibility. lol

          LOL, do you have an ideologically pure chart with which to refute my chart? LOL

          LOL

          Best,

          LOL

          D

          LOL

          • Goldminer

            Your failing the Turing test.

            • Dano2

              Do YOU have an ideologically pure, free market chart that shows the true truth temperatures? Bust it out if you do.

              Best,

              D

              • Goldminer

                Politically pure, don’t get confused you’ll blow the cover, Of actually understanding the universe.

                • Dano2

                  So you don’t have data to point to that shows the true truth temps. Weird.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Goldminer

                    This is a political discussion is it not.

                    • Dano2

                      That would explain your inability to provide one iota of data to counter mine.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Goldminer

                      Politics cares nothing about facts.

                    • Dano2

                      As you are demonstrating very well.

                      Best,

                      D