Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany resurrected the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and inserted it into the text they are preparing for nations to agree to at the big UN summit in Paris in December.
The draft text will allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.
From the October 20th UN draft text (full text available at CFACT.org):
“[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.”
Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations. Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.
This is not the first time that a climate court has appeared in a UN climate text. In 2011 a nearly identical provision crept into the text at the UN’s climate summit in Durban. The provision was stripped from the text after CFACT’s Climate Depot blew the whistle and Marc Morano’s exclusive was picked up by the media. This time they substitute the word “tribunal” for “court” and insist that the body will be “non-judicial.”
The slight edit to the terminology offers little comfort.
If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement “mechanism.”
Whatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the UN climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations. Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the “poor” countries expand theirs. China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, would be counted among the poor.
China and India are delighted. They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free market economies created. They hope for a future where Asia does the manufacturing and the U.S. and Europe do the importing — until their wealth runs out, anyway.
Take a look at the UN draft agreements for yourself. We’ll update them as things develop.
President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are mired in foreign policy failures. They desperately want to get this agreement signed so they can claim a victory for their legacies.
This is lunacy.
“This is lunacy.”
This is Fascism. The lunacy part was in electing the present administration in 2008 whose leader thinks global warming is the biggest threat we face. The biggest threat we currently face is in electing people who think AGW is real.
Agreed.
electing people who think AGW is real.
You want elected officials who deny reality?
Weird.
Best,
D
Declare war on the U.N.
No war, just disengagement and dis-financing
The UN can get bent.
Amen to that.
If the Climate change lobby were sure of their case they would stop trying to bully and explain in plain English the exact mechanism, and how it functions. Some of us understand how theories are used even when not a proven truth.
This they seem reluctant to do preferring the snake oil bamboozlers methods. Deceivers the whole lot of them!
You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.
Best,
D
Hey Dano, how much is a floating oz of snake-oil these days, mate?
The topic is poor Brin’s inability to comprehend basic science established over a century ago, and taught to pre-teens in grammar school, thanks!
Best,
D
Humans have added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 18 2/3 years, which is 50% of the amount that had been added in the previous few hundred years, and it has caused NO global warming! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/scale:0.05/mean:12
The empirical data shows that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. So sad that you are such a denier of reality. But then, that’s what duped doomsday cultists do.
Here’s a more honest temperature graph, instead of a dishonestly cherry-picked choice:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/to:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2015/trend
And you are utterly, completely wrong that the empirical data shows that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming, unless you have a manuscript that was accepted by a peer-reviewed journal overturning all of physics.
Let us know when you get published.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21bfbf5dd40c34c31d8c633301d0ff65982ebb5174c51bbf1dc3b2a54e11ba20.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5cb119206aadb08c594d307b21853be54a0505abf162dc28de2e3baaaae23ec.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6894d3ea1b353c4a7879a719e47d338624c7dd69b32784e485ca695029369b75.jpg
LOL @ your posting corrupted-by-adjustment junk pseudoscience! What a pathetic DUPE you are! Hahahahaha
Dano, I’ve exposed you to the empirical data that shows that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 cult religion is pure nonsense, too many times to count. You are an ideologically blinded, duped foolish cult zealot. So sad.
I used the same wood for trees you did. Which uses the same data in the graphs.
You got nothin’.
Best,
D
“I used the same wood for trees you did. Which uses the same data in the graphs.>”
LOL @ your scientific illiteracy! Sorry dupe, but it is not the same data that I used.
I used the satellite dataset, which covers ~99% of the surface of the globe, and is accurate to 0.03C, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/ .
You used a corrupted-by-adjustment land ocean dataset.
“You got nothin’.”
I have to give it to you, you sure are good at projection! Hahaha
Thanks LOLO smartie.
Satellite data – which are highly adjusted and don’t even measure temperature – are not more accurate than surface data.
And you have zero evidence that the surface data are corrupted. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ddc3d6dc1717ede907804755a2cdbf16ece974a35c768ad7c2b7685e2e4c297.jpg
Best,
D
LOL @ even MORE stupidity from the scientifically illiterate duped dummkopf! Hahahahaha
Thanks LOLO!
Smarties know that I quoted the owner of the data you prefer, and post here. So that means you are using data prepared by the scientifically illiterate. wouldn’t surprise me you don’t understand what you paste, right smartie-smart?
Best,
D
Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.
You have yet to rebut a single bit of empirical DATA and science that I have presented. All you do is stupidly parrot the propaganda that you have swallowed.
You scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cult zealots are pathetic!
You have yet to rebut a single bit of empirical DATA and science that I have presented.
LOLO, you smartie! There are these thingies called “links”. Learn what they do.
Best,
D
ROTFLMAO @ your ignorance and stupidity!
Yep, you have yet to rebut a bit of the science and empirical DATA in any of the LINKS that I have posted. Man, that STUPID must really hurt! Hahahahahahaha
Clicky on linkies, smartie!
LOLO
Best,
D
Stupid Dano2 believes 8 + 16 = 90 !!!! Hahahahahaha
Git offa my lawwwwwwn can’t figure out how links work, LOLO
Best,
D
STILL LOL @ the mathematically illiterate doomsday climate cult fanatic who thinks 8 + 16 = 90 !!!!!! WOW, never have I seen such stupid denial of reality !
Links to others rather than your own understanding, pathetic.
Dishonest assertion.
Best,
D
Idiot, What qualification do you hold? I worked for Solartron, Southern Instruments and Microcell with many talented engineers and Scientists. I have run my own business, worked with teams and never been dependant on the State, ever. I may well have forgotten more than you were ever knew. I do hold a Physics qualification, be it only to HND level in 1955.
Deflection from inability to understand.
Best,
D
“The Paris France based Mathematical Calculation Society, SA: ‘There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way =disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.’
‘Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.’
‘We are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.’ ” – White Paper, ‘The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade’ – http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
So sad that you can’t comprehend that reality. But delusional doomsday cultists are well known for their lack of comprehension and denial of reality as they are blinded by their ideology and too scientifically illiterate to even understand that they have been duped.
Who cares. The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.
Best,
D
“The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.”
LOL @ your stupid swallowing of the propaganda that is spoon fed to you!
Your ‘CO2 hypothesis’ was tossed on the rubbish heap of history a half-century ago:
“Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial
causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018
LOLO smartie!
You have zero science on your side, so bombast and bluster and ululate.
You have zero evidence that earth has a NewPhysics working on earth and nowhere else in the universe.
Best,
D
“You have zero science on your side, so bombast and bluster and ululate.”
ROTFLMAO @ your pathetic denial of reality.
Sorry dupe, that is quoted verbatim from an official 1951 report from the American Meteorology Society. So sad that you are such a pathetic denier of reality. But that’s what stupid scientifically illiterate duped cult zealots do.
And your fake ‘97% consensus’ is pure male bovine excrement, as 29% of AMS meteorologists surveyed in 2009 agreed with the statement: “Global warming is a SCAM” and less than 45% disagreed! And in the same survey, only 24% agreed with the statement: “Most of the warming since 1950 is human-induced.”! http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2947.1
So much for your stupid propaganda claim that “majority of scientists agree” with you! Hahahahahaha. What a pathetically ignorant DUPE you are!
an official 1951 report
LOLO
That’s the best it can do.
And thanks for refuting your asssertion by using the AMS report! It refutes you! You were lied to by James Taylor, and lacked capacity to realize it! The AMS publicly censured Taylor for lying to you with those numbers!
Hoot!
Best,
D
“an official 1951 report”
Yep, proves your claim that “The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.” with me was 100% false and based on pure ignorance on your part. Pure ignorance, scientific illiteracy and gullibility is what your cult masters depend on to get dupes to blindly follow your cult religion. So sad.
LOLO smartie!
Your link to the AMS paper refutes you. I guess you never read it.
Best,
D
“Your link to the AMS paper refutes you.”
LOL @ your denial of reality!
Sorry dupe, but everything I posted from that link is 100% accurate and proves that you are a pathetic liar. Typical of delusional duped doomsday cult deniers of reality. So sad.
You have yet to rebut a single thing I have posted. All you do is lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny. So sad.
That paper confirms over 90% consensus, LOLO.
Thanks for the link supporting my asssertion.
Best,
D
“That paper confirms over 90% consensus”
ROTFLOL @ your denial of reality!
You pathetic stupid fool, here it is word for word from the AMS survey:
“17. Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” Strongly Agree (1) 8% Agree (2) 16%”
Hilarious that you are so STUPID that you think 8 + 17 = 90!!!! Fine job of proving that you are not only scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically illiterate! Hahahahahahaha
ps. Everyone can see that you are making an idiotic and moronic claim when they read the survey for themselves: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2947.1
ps. Do you enjoy exposing your scientific and mathematical illiteracy?
LOLO!
You didn’t read the paper!
Your uh smartie!
Best,
D
“You didn’t read the paper”
ROTFMAO @ your projection! Hahahahaha
You ignorant dupe, I quoted from the paper! And my quote was 100% accurate!
Still LOL @ the climate cult fanatic who believes that 8 + 16 = 90!!!! Hahahahahahaha
The authors of the paper refute “your” interpretation of their results, smartie-smart.
LOLO
Best,
D
“The authors of the paper refute “your” interpretation of their results, smartie-smart.”
Sorry dupe, it’s not “my interpretation”, it’s the hard numbers that I quoted directly from the report!
Here it is again:
“17. Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” Strongly Agree (1) 8% Agree (2) 16%”
And also, for your enjoyment and denial:
“18. Respond to one TV weathercaster’s quote saying: “Global warming is a scam.” Strongly Agree (1) 10% Agree (2) 19%”
Deny away dupe! Hahahahaha
The authors refute your made-up numbers.
They might be LOLzing at you too.
LOLO
Best,
D
What a reality-denying liar you are!
My quotes were 100% accurate and prove me correct and prove you wrong.
No, it’s true, smartie-smartsmart! The authors might be LOLzing at you for your LOLO interpretation of their work!
It troo!
Best,
D
Liar
Denier
Not capable of grasping reality – everyone can tell:
Someone is big fibbin’, right LOLO?
Best,
D
Sorry dupe, but that is NOT in the AMS report that I quoted from. It is from a propaganda source that was embarrassed by the survey results, so lied and tried to smear someone who merely pointed out the same embarrassing results that I have.
So sad that you are so stupid, ignorant, and ideologically blinded that you gullibly swallow their lies and propaganda. But that’s what duped, delusional doomsday cult fanatics do. So sad.
Neither you nor that dishonest propaganda article change the FACT that 29% of the AMS meteorologists surveyed responded that “Global warming is a SCAM“, and that only 24% of the AMS meteorologists surveyed agreed with the statement: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
“Someon is big fibbin'”
Yep, you’ve irrefutably proved that YOU are the one who is fibbin’, denyin’ & lyin’! I have quoted 100% accurate survey responses. You have rebutted NOTHING! Hahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
LOLO can’t handle quotes from authors refuting its inept and erroneous interpretation of their paper!
Hoot!
Best,
D
Laughing at your own stupidity! Priceless!
LOLO embarrassed, now trying to deflect away from inanities!
Hoot!
Best,
D
LOL @ your continued denial of reality and handwaving obfuscation!
You have yet to rebut a single thing that I have posted. Yet you stupidly cling to your lies and delusions. So sad.
LOLO sads it was embarrassed, yelling at everyone to get offa his lawwwwn!
Best,
D
You come along with a proposal that we need to change our lives drastically in support of this Carbon theory. We are told that we all all doomed if we do not!
Its for the changers to convince us by reason that it is a necessary change? You have failed miserably.
Replace your dunces hat and stop trying to bully folks with your insulting and boorish rants.
I think you intended this reply to Dano2.
Sorry I did indeed.
np
No, you are the one with the bombastic and bullying style, covering up your insecurities, inanities, and worldview with no basis in objective reality.
Best,
D
“bombastic and bullying style”
Well, yes, I guess I did bombard you with empirical DATA and peer reviewed papers, which you couldn’t rebut. And I understand why you feel bullied, as you had no rebuttal whatsoever to the facts and data that I bombarded you with.
“covering up your insecurities, inanities and worldview with no basis in objective reality”
LOL. Nice projection there dupe.
Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who is insecure because you can’t rebut a single thing that I posted.
Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who makes the inane replies.
Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who has a worldview (CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2) which has no basis in objective reality, as the objective data shows that there has been no global warming at all over the past 18 2/3 years even though humans have released an unprecedented amount of CO2 during that timeframe.
Yes indeed, a fantastically delusional amount of projection on your part! You sure ARE good at projection.
You’ve been refuted, thanks, bombaster and ululating arm-waver!
Best,
D
“You’ve been refuted”
Nice projection dupe!
Thanks smartie, you were refuted.
Best,
D
Yet another lie and denial of reality. So sad.
It is a lie to state I lied.
/third grade English
Best,
D
Readers: Note that this is the empirical science that Dano2 refuses to accept because it proves that his CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is false:
The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:
Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!
1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.
2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’
This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.
This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’
The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports
This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.
“The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’
The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
• Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
• Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
• Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
• Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
• Warm phase of the PDO :
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
• Warm phase of the AMO :
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
&
• Predominance of El Ninos:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126
Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha
You aren’t even bright enough to realize that “were convinced that humans have CONTRIBUTED to global warming” in no way equals CATASTROPHIC antropogenic global warming (CAGW) that your ilk is claiming. Even the skeptics by >90% agree that man has “contributed” to the mild, and quite beneficial 1.5C of total warming since the end of the LIA. Wow… you warmists are so easily Gruberized.
CAGW!!
Drink!
Best,
D
Science is not consensus; it is absolute. Unless you think there is a consensus about gravity, the solar system, nuclear fission.
Oh yes, fyi the Earth IS round – no consensus there just 100% certainty.
The consensus of scientists, however, is that man is causing the observed changes.
/basic
Best,
D
Thanks smartie!
Smarties know that passage doesn’t refute my assertion! Do you know why! Because soon thereafter it was pointed out many others didn’t agree! Vast majority! Wheeeeeeeeeee!
LOLO
Best,
D
ROTFLMAO @ your continued denial of reality!
“but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.”
You are such a pathetic denier of reality. So sad. But so typical of scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cultists.
Thanks smartie!
You have no evidence for a NewPhysics that overcomes the physics that works everywhere in the universe!
You have no equations! No models! No data!
Nothing!
LOLO
Best,
D
LOL @ your denial of reality!
You have yet to rebut a single thing I have posted. All you do is lie, deny and post your baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS! Typical of scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cult fanatics. So sad.
Right – you have no evidence for your wish for an alternate reality.
LOLO
Best,
D
“Right – you have no evidence for your wish for an alternate reality”
ROTFLMAO @ your continued projection and denial of reality!
You have yet to rebut single thing that I have posted! What a f-ing moron you are!
You continue to provide no evidence for a NewPhysics that works only on earth.
Oh, wait: you quote from one book written 65 years ago. Wowie! That was a good think!
Best,
D
LOL @ your delusions!
You have no NewPhysics, everyone can tell, LOLO
Best,
D
LOL @ your mindlessly repeating meaningless propaganda.
“You have no NewPhysics”
Sorry dupe, Mother Nature has debunked your global warming religion. No “NewPhysics” required. You “Physics” has been proved wrong. It’s exaggerated bunkum. 500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere and it has caused NO global warming! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/scale:0.05/mean:12
500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere and it has caused NO global warming!
LOLO embarrassing itself!
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b0fd7e113f052e88fd2126640eaa892facc8a53b6f9544f731b3c1175af72c6.png
LOL @ your handwaving clown dance of DENIAL!
Sorry dupe, your cherry picked period of natural climate warming proves nothing except that you are peddling propaganda of your debunked global warming religion.
The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:
Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!
1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.
2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’
This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.
This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’
The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports
This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.
“The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’
The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
• Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
• Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
• Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
• Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
• Warm phase of the PDO :
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
• Warm phase of the AMO :
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
&
• Predominance of El Ninos:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126
Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha
your cherry picked period
*snicker*
LOLO is refuted, despite it’s raving to git offa his lawwwwwwwwwwwwwn
Best,
D
Yep, no rebuttal to the science that shows your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is a steaming, stinking pile of male bovine excrement.
Seldom have I seen such a deluded, duped moron. And the other times that I have, they have all been members of your cult.
There are these things called ‘links’. Learn what they do.
Best,
D
Wow, what a moronic reply!
I know what links are. They are the things that you ignore because you have your head up your backside.
Then you are being purposely dishonest when you hilariously assert You provided absolutely no refutation to the science that I presented which shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability, especially when you provide no evidence for the assertion except a distantly related (and hilarious) excerpt from one book ~75 years ago.
Hoot!
Best,
D
“especially when you provide no evidence for the assertion”
I provided irrefutable evidence in my comment here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/10/23/un-climate-text-adds-an-international-tribunal-of-climate-justice/#comment-2324732511
Readers: Note that all this reality denying troll does is make yet another moronic, idiotic reply. Village idiots are brighter than this troll. Hahaha
Irrefutable comedy, yes.
Laughable notcitations, no (Dano 2015).
There – I cited something and it is irrefutable. So there!
Best,
D
What is this new Physics you keep referring to? This new science seems to be in the Political Socialist Climatology. Why do you never supply proof, only flawed repetitions.
“Everyone can tell” What exactly, that they retain conventional Science instead of moving with the PC times?
The NewPhysics is the alternate-reality fizzix that must exist for your wishes to be true.
/typing slowly for comprehension
Best,
D
This guy only throws in one liners an links to green sites as his understanding. After all else fail he resorts to others, ” lack of understanding”. Although unable to explain what or why he believes.
A useful idiot hiding behind his pseudo name. Look at his reply to you, he has a file of such comments to cut and paste.
Dishonest assertions to cover insecurity.
Best,
D
Don’t forget to waive bye-bye to the trees when you eliminate CO2. Can you say photosynthesis ?
Limnate CO2!
That’s good comedy!
Best,
D
“This guy only throws in one liners an links to green sites as his understanding.”
I am guessing you are referring to Dano2 who is the person on this blog most often symptomatic of a missing brain. If the 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 influenced global temps to the extent claimed by the AGW two things would be true. 1 Jim Hansen’s computer algorithms would accurately predict the increase in global temps (from 1850) based on the increase in CO2. 2. We would now have a source of heat to run our manifold heat engines which now depend on fossil fuel for a heat source.
Your correct, I just edited the post.
1 Jim Hansen’s computer algorithms would accurately predict the increase in global temps (from 1850) based on the increase in CO2
They do, So who knows what your point might be.
Best,
D
So you are a paid troll!
Try to do better.
Best,
D
You’re wasting your breath(electrons) trying to argue with the clown Dano2. He’s a paid troll. He’s not delusional, not stupid, not ignorant…just malignant. He came to a lecture I gave years ago and harassed me. Ignore him….or, better yet, contribute a few $$$ to CFACT and put him out of business.
Says the sad commenter who can’t post anything that can stand scrutiny, and who lacks the courage to address comments directly.
Best,
D
Yeah, I know he’s a clown. I only play with him to expose his idiocy & moronicity so others can see the delusional denial of reality of these CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 trolls. He is a poster child for the global warming climate cult.
You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.
That’s because I’m sweating UN thug’s gun to my head. That has my attention at the moment.
Your 17 guns don’t keep you safe? Better consume another one.
Best,
D
Then you are unable to explain your case. Perhaps because its weak and you don’t comprehend it your self.
Only a fool expects others to believe what he can’t explain himself.
Your gamie-game doesn’t work on me.
Best,
D
“You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.”
You can’t explain it (and have not even tried) nor can you explain anything else.
and have not even tried
Dishonest assertion.
Best,
D
Troll
You are unable to use a number of terms properly, and I’ll add “troll” to that long list.
Best,
D
moron
Another typical low-wattage con dupe reply. So sad.
Best,
D
Yep, you STILL have no science to rebut what I posted! Hahahaha What a f-ing CLOWN you are!
Already done. You simply lack capacity to grasp it.
Best,
D
More lies and denial of reality. So sad.
Can’t grasp it, check.
Best,
D
Readers: Note Dano’s continued projection, as he can’t rebut the empirical science that shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability:
The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:
Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!
1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.
2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’
This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.
This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’
The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports
This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.
“The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’
The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
• Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
• Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
• Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
• Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
• Warm phase of the PDO :
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
• Warm phase of the AMO :
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
&
• Predominance of El Ninos:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126
Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha
Look up “logarithmic curve”, Dano. We’ve passed the “knee of the curve.” Future warming from here on is trivial – 1.3K sensitivity.
You are a busy boy – Denver Post and here too.
That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!
Best,
D
O.K. Einstein.
We’re all waiting. Please explain the science in indisputable terms.
Thanks smartie. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs longwave infrared radiation then reradiates it. Increasing the concentration of GHGs holds more LWIR, and increases the temperature of a planet.
HTH
Best,
D
The theory of human activity resulting in climate change was first put forward by Guy Callendar in 1938.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283372
So now, after 75 years and countless hours of research by thousands of scientists your bottom lip is out and quivering because the grownups have accepted that a serious situation exists and must be dealt with, even while the children insist on their right to sit and sulk!
You have the right name Mobius. One surface.
A but with a little twist!
“The theory of human activity resulting in climate change was first put forward by Guy Callendar in 1938.”
But the hypothesis was soon after (by 1951) abandoned by the world’s climate scientists, and was never widely accepted. It was only resurrected since then because of political motivation and because alarmist scientists found they could feed at the hog trough of the public treasury if they peddled that junk science.
“Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1016
We have even more empirical evidence to reject the CO2 hypothesis now, than they did in 1951.
In the last ~19 years humans have added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere (50% of the amount added in the previous few hundred years), and it has caused no global warming. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/scale:0.05/mean:12
This is conclusive evidence that the climate scientists of 1951 were correct when they said that increasing CO2 and temperature was merely a “coincidence”. It also confirms they were correct in not considering the CO2 theory further.
Dishonest money grubbing people now use the same cherry-picked past “coincidental” correlation to peddle their junk pseudoscience, ignoring the fact that the total lack of correlation over the last 18+ years totally refutes the CO2 hypothesis.
And scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatics mindlessly repeat alarmist propaganda claiming there is a “serious situation”, when in fact there is no empirical evidence showing that to be true. Only the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models predict doom. But the rubbish models have totally failed. But that doesn’t deter The dupes of the false global warming doomsday cult religion to play Chicken Little and claim that the sky is falling. So sad.
…and this one can’t grasp that the world has moved well beyond that parochial view expressed almost three-quarters of a century ago. No wonder poor hapless ROO2 can’t cite anything in the last half century.
Best,
D
“No wonder ROO2 can’t cite anything in the last half century”
Readers:
1) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that the peer reviewed papers that I cited, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), Usoskin(2003), Tapping(2007), Scafetta(2009), Krivova(2010), Krivova(2011) were not written in the last half century.
2) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that temperature data from 1984-2000 are not within the past half century.
3) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that NASA’s global mean cloud amount data from 1983-2010 is not within the past half century.
All of these were cited in my previous comment ( http://www.cfact.org/2015/10/23/un-climate-text-adds-an-international-tribunal-of-climate-justice/#comment-2324732511 ) to him, yet this duped CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatic is so ideologically blinded that he refuses to acknowledge this reality. So sad.
You haven’t cited any of these papers (Dano 2015a). The sole papers you improperly cited (Dano 2015b) are a fun clown show, as comically your chart of TSI that refutes your funny paper that says TSI is increasing (Dano 2015c).
That is: just because you improperly cite a paper doesn’t mean it is true.
Entertaining, though. You are def a laff.
best,
D
WOW, what delusion! Typical for duped scientifically illiterate trolls. So sad.
This (Dano 2015) isn’t a citation. No one can tell if the paper you use actually backs your claim.
That is: you are hiding whether you are making up stuff. On purpose or cuz lack capacity. Either way.
Right smartie?
Best,
D
More projection and denial of reality. So sad.
Still think that 8+16=90? Hahahahahahaha’
What an idiot!
Deflection from ignorance, check.
Best,
D
Readers: Note that this is the empirical science that Dano2 can’t rebut, so he performs his handwaving clown dance of obfuscation:
Readers: Note Dano’s continued projection, as he can’t rebut the
empirical science that shows that the late 20th century warming was
caused by natural climate variability:
The warming of the late
20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more
solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global
mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm
phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All
natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic.
Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate
forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:
Since
you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we
expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!
1)
There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05
, in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of
human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have
added prior to the 21st century.
2) Most of the warming in the
last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
3)
Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from
1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR
[Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1
and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to
2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar
radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily
attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of
Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’
This increase in
surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term
variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our
climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a
rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed
changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical
cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to
be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites
Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over
the 1983-2001 timeframe.
This increase in solar radiation
reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) –
“Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy
balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an
increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and
an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in
Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past
33 yrs (1979-2011)’
The reduction in global mean cloud amount
that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s
surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
4) Your
own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water
vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe.
(5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports
This
empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar
forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame
when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing.
Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability
was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically,
it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary
driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of
the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s
surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of
solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than
the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late
20th century warming.
“The period of high solar activity during
the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A
Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually
Active Sun Since 1940’
The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
• Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
•
Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure
shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest
values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite
composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
• Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
• Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
This
is graphically shown here:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
• Warm phase of the PDO :
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
• Warm phase of the AMO :
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
&
• Predominance of El Ninos:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126
Deny
away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional,
duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha
I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
My website is
Thank you.
Tim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Get US out of the UN!!! Fifty years now I’ve watched this court of SHAME.
Have GWPF purchase ad space like everyone else does.
Best,
D
Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:
Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?
Best,
D
I would like to tell you about this clip which shows exactly how idiotically Timothy Ball is prepared to behave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA&index=106&list=PL6C777687264351D8
If you scroll forward to 8.00 mins in you can see him pretending to be hiding and in fear of his life. It would be pretty funny if it wasn’t so sad.
You see the only way this Climate Court works is to have the Baddest Ass ARMY on earth ! but none of these Member nations cept an ARMY like that Because their STUPID LIBERALS . YA Go ahead and try that you Damn UN ASSHOLES ! Try that with Russia and China and they will be stuffing your ass in a hole in the GROUND !
IT’S ALL ((((TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION)))) AND THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP !!! POUND SAND UNITED NATIONS !!!!
We in the US will be defunding you SOON United Nations !!! You have one year for your Bullshit Make it a good show. Because no one with any common sense is listening ! YOUR JUST A BUNCH OF POWERLESS MOONBATS CHASING BUGS IN THE MOONLIGHT !
This has to be a joke!
I can understand why poor nations would like to see passage of any law that redistributes funds from richer nations. However, this proposal is lunacy as “Odin” states in his comment. It proposal seems to be written to exclude China and India which are defined by this proposal and to penalize the US and other Nations that are much poorer than either China or India. This proposal is simply an attempt to get the “Nose of the Camel Under the Tent” in the ultimate goal of getting all nations under UN control. If Obama and his administration have any brains they will veto this in a heart beat. Does anyone trust that Obama will veto this? I believe Obama is a socialist and will do anything to further the cause of socialism.
I hate the UN. If you hate the UN too write your Representative: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and Senators: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ and tell them to get us out of the UN.
Those who bother to read comments from the troll Dano2 may notice how much of his content – such as it is – is derived from Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” papers and the conclusions therefrom.
For example, a day or so ago he was claiming the climate had been extremely stable for centuries – ignoring the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as well as others. Only since the Industrial Revolution has the climate warmed “without precedent.”
I mention this because Mark Steyn has a new book out, “A Disgrace to the Profession”, about Mann. The surprising thing in it, to me, was the large number of serious, well-qualified scientists who share some concern about manmade global warming (AGW) and TOTALLY despise what Mann did in the hockey stick paper. This adds to Tim Ball’s new book about the deliberate corruption of science.
If you want a laugh, read Steyn’s book, and realize how disgusting Dano2 is.
More craven behavior. Not enough courage to address anyone directly.
a day or so ago he was claiming the climate had been extremely stable for centuries –
Smart people know I showed you it was true. You just appear to be unable to grasp it (which is likely why you run away and start calling names from afar).
And Mann totem! Drink!
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1695667086760df3c263faa7c971cdf43fd520b33d055cff3e98ba96ae7c421.gif
Calling names from afar? “Get an education”, Unable to comprehend”, “Unable to grasp”, Thats all you have ever done when you are unable to explain why you believed the CO2 theory. These minuscule graphs might mean something to those following a narrow interpretation who probably recognise them as part of their co2 brief. However with out any explanation they are meaningless tripe. The Hockey stick graph referred too was exposed many years ago, but you have never conceded this is a problem in your bigoted outlook.
Wake up, the public do not all follow opinion as proven facts. Some of us require a proper explanation from those who claim life must be changed drastically, hell fire man we deserve it, not abuse from clowns on a keyboard.
That direct enough for you?
Can’t grasp simple facts. We know.
Best,
D
Hockey stick totem!
Drink!
Best,
D
The inmates have truly taken over the asylum. They are perpetrating the biggest fraud ever in the history of mankind!
I want to see kerry & obama shot for treason and news broad cast world wide.
If there is even a hint of a Tribunal or a Court, Congress should take action and stop it cold. Now that we have seen what our President has done with Iran, it is not beyond the possibility that he would do this with the UN and then run as the head of the UN, representing Kenya, when he leaves office.
How about an International Tribunal of Earthquake and Volcano Justice? Certainly we are as responsible for causing these events as we are for influencing the climate.
Whats the problem? Why get so upset, folks? “The Committee][mechanism][process][, including the Committee, shall be [expert
based, facilitative in nature] [and shall act in a manner that is transparent, non-punitive, non-adversarial]
and non-judicial. It shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities
and circumstances of Parties.” Read it here:http://tinyurl.com/op6d7zs
THAT’S BECAUSE MAN DOESNT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING WHICH OUR PRESIDENT DOESNT KNOW BEING THAT I DONT THINK HE EVER ATTENDED HARVARD OR COLUMBIA. ITS ALL A RUSE TO CHARGE US A TAX, FOR A NATURAL PHENOMENA, CAUSED BY HOW CLOSE THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH IS IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUN. It was two degrees warmer in The Middle Ages and the Sky didn’t fall and the waves didn’t pour over the continents. Global cooling and warming have been happening since the earth was formed. MAN HAS NO EFFECTON THE WEATHER. However I think the Government thinks we are stupid, and they can use this as a LIE, to get us to agree to pay a global carbon tax to enrich themselves , al gore and his investors and others!! DON’T BELIEVE IT!!! ITS IS A 44 BILLION DOLLAR A DAY SCAM ON YOU!!! OUR LEADERS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND WORLDWIDE DONT APPEAR TO BE VERY INTELLIGENT OR HONEST. They want to use this global carbon tax to fund their satanic, evil, modern day,. feudal system, New World Order. Americans will not stand for it especially especially with the fraud we have in The White House and his enablers, ie nancy pelosi, harry reid, axlerod, rahm emanuel, dick biden, john mc cain, mcconnell and others!!! WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS SCAM!!!!
Man does not in any way change the climate. If anyone thinks so they are either ignorant of the facts or a FOOL. The US Government is a milignant Cancer. I am so sorry for the people who believe in this Cancerous Federal Government.