1.5 degrees of climate madness

The international climate machine is about to achieve a new degree of alarmist absurdity, basically speeding up as they hit the wall. It is all about the Paris Climate Agreement targets and it is kind of fun to watch. Here’s how it goes.

The Agreement has a hard (and silly) target of limiting future global warming to 2.0 degrees C above what are called pre-industrial levels. But there is also a softer (and sillier) target of 1.5 degrees. As usual with international agreements, the language is vague, but all the countries say they will go for 2 but try for 1.5.

The big reason for this is money. Under the Paris Agreement the developed countries are supposed to pay the developing countries whatever it costs to hit the target. Given the goofy computer models it will be much harder, hence much more expensive, to hit the 1.5 degrees of warming target. In fact immediate drastic action is required. Hence the developing countries, which control the Paris process, get a lot more money a lot sooner.

This also raises the pseudoscientific question, what difference does this difference in targets make? Enter the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. The Paris Agreement is owned by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change machine or simply the UNFCCC. These folks promptly tasked the IPCC with saying how much better a 1.5 degree limit would be than a 2.0 degree limit.

Interestingly this also raises the question what is wrong with the 2 degree target? After all, the global damage has to still be pretty great at 2 in order to justify the 1.5 target. This two edged fact has made some moderate alarmists nervous, but never mind. The UNFCCC is not moderate.

Not surprisingly, the IPCC was up to the job. It has put its draft 800+ page report out for expert comment. And of course they got the desired result, because the IPCC starts with its conclusion then mines the scientific literature for ways to justify it. One might call this Reverse Science, an analog to Reverse Engineering.

As Bernie Lewin explains in his new bookSearching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” the IPCC started off in 1988 as a legitimate scientific assessment group. It initially found no conclusive evidence that humans were causing global warming. But the 1992 UNFCCC changed all of that, putting the alarmist cart far ahead of the plodding scientific horse. The IPCC was told to be alarmist or be gone and they are still here.

Here is an example of the hyper-alarmist IPCC draft findings:

FAQ 3.2: Is a +1.5C world different to a +2C world?

Understanding the difference between 1.5C and 2C of global warming relative to the preindustrial period is central to a safe and sustainable future. Before the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, the world mostly focused on holding global warming to 2C. Yet now, new scientific literature is emerging that highlights negative impacts from a 2C or even lower global warming. There are negative impacts from a global warming of 1.5C but these are less severe than compared to a 2C increase in global temperatures.”

Extreme events
Global warming of 2C vs 1.5C is likely to lead to more frequent and more intense hot extremes in most land regions as well as to longer warm spells. Impacts on cities at both 1.5C and 2.0C of warming would include a substantial increase in the occurrence of heatwaves compared to the present-day, with temperature related health risks being lower in some but not all cities under 1.5C of global warming.

Note that they say that some of the damage at 2 degrees will also occur at 1.5. This is because some of the computer models say that all warming is damaging to some degree.

It should also be noted that this talk of 2 and 1.5 degrees is very misleading. The UNFCCC and IPCC both accept the goofy surface temperature statistical models, which say that we have already had one whole degree of warming. The satellites indicate that there has been little warming and that little has been natural, but this is simply ignored by the alarmists.

Thus the Paris targets are actually to limit future warming to just 1.0 or 0.5 degrees, respectively. The Paris maximum target is really 1 degree, not 2, and the preferred target is holding warming to half a degree.

No wonder that drastic action is needed (and which is simply going to happen). Given the climate models built-in high sensitivity to CO2 emissions, it is virtually impossible to limit future (computer) warming to just 0.5 degrees.

This impossibility is especially true in those models with built-in future warming coming from past emissions. Some models show a large time lag, with another 0.5 degrees of warming already “in the pipeline” as the modelers say.

This lag is known as the difference between transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which is immediate warming, and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which includes the lag time and can be much higher. In fact the UK Meteorological Office now says that the 1.5 degree target could be exceeded within five years.

So basically the alarmists have created a problem for themselves. They first made the models “hot,” which means highly sensitive to CO2, in order to hype the scare. Now they have made the warming-limit target impossibly low for political correctness (and revenue enhancement).

Demanding the impossible is the road to failure. Let’s hope so.

Categories

About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

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

  • Anon Anon

    Will they take credit for global cooling?

    • David Wojick

      They will try to explain it away. Recall that according to their own data we had global cooling from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s but that has not slowed them down. They claim that the cooling was due to increased pollution. This time they might say it is due to diminished solar activity, so it is merely masking the global warming which will rush back when the solar activity comes back to normal. This is also what they have done with the pause, plus adjusting it away, as NOAA has done.

      • Robert

        Well, you’ve got access to the draft, the final AR5. What science has been brought forward supporting your claim?
        “This time they might say it is due…”

        • David Wojick

          Hansen and Gavin have already invoked solar cooling in advance to explain away the next pause. The lit is full of predictions of solar cooling. So it seems like a natural dodge in the making. Not sure what AR5 has to do with it.

          • Robert

            Your first comment said, “..they might say it is due to diminished solar activity..”.
            Now you say “..already invoked solar cooling in advance..”

            Seems you need to get your story straight.

            And support it.
            With quotes. With details like when and where.

          • Robert

            “..lit is full of predictions of solar cooling…”

            Said without a single point of evidence.
            Wonder why.

            Chapter 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

    • reagangs

      It’s all smoke and mirrors along with a lot of computer modeling, right or wrong, and hyper UN socialism; basically fear mongering guess work with cooked data (climate gate). I’m sure old socialist Georgie Soros and his UN, EU and US minions and sheeple are involved. Someone once said; “a lie repeated enough will eventually become the truth”. If I remember, it was V. Lenin, the god father of the former USSR.

    • socalpa

      In the works .
      .
      The crackpots are preparing arguments to blame the return of the hiatus on global warming .
      .
      Same as they did on the unexpected colder winters of the past two decades across the northern hemisphere .
      .
      Panic is setting in as the data matches the solar and ocean current cycles ,showing no relation to CO2 elevation .

  • Ari Okkonen

    Demanding the impossible is the standard practice of the left. “To Be Realistic, Demand the Impossible” https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/to-be-realistic-demand-the-impossible-toward-a-visionary-left

  • Hammurabi

    the starting point is important as the max range of warming.
    as they have set the starting point at the ‘pre-industrial’ level, which means 1850, well, we already have 1,5 degree of warming!
    they like to call it ‘pre-industrial’ because it leads people to think that all the warming we had from 1800 is caused by the industrialization. in reality, the mankind has probably started having an impact on the climate from 1950. Nobody has ever suggested that the warming from 1850-1950 has been caused by human activity. and that’s 1 degree of warming!

    • David Wojick

      Actually the idea that the warming before 1950 was not human caused is relatively recent. As I recall the IPCC only retreated to this position in AR4.

      Plus the whole idea of limiting post-industrial warming to 2.0 or 1.5 degrees more or less assumes that all of the warming is human caused. How else can the developing countries claim that the developed countries must compensate them for the damages caused by all of the warming?

  • Manorly

    Have read about climate modelling out of the U.K. and Russia that shows Earth has actually entered a global cooling period (as of 2007) of perhaps a century or more . . . plausibly leading us into another mini-ice-age. It has a lot to do with identifying the cycles of our sun.

    • Ian5

      No you are misinformed. The planet is not entering a “global cooling period”.
      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html

      • Brin Jenkins

        Ever considered that you may be misinformed?

      • Manorly

        Massive snowfall in Germany, snowing in Morocco, Arabian Desert temperature declining, ocean temperatures dropping, our sun going into a cyclical period of dormancy in terms of sunspot activity, and so on and so forth.
        Study of Greenland ice provides a 2500 year perspective indicating we headed into a mini-ice-age as happened from the mid 1300’s to the mid 1800’s; and the data from the 1200 or so floating buoys around the world’s oceans are likewise showing a cooling trend, and have been for some time. Climate models suggest increasing frequency of, and greater damage from, violent storms is the result of global cooling, not warming . . . and so on and so forth.

        • reagangs

          Greenland was originally named that for a reason. Centuries ago Greenland was void of most of present day perpetual ice. Iceland exist in a constant geothermal zone (the mid Atlantic Riff) that is capable of producing their entire civilization’s source of steam generated electricity. Maybe Greenland should be named Iceland and vice versa.

        • Ian5

          No, you are confused. The occurrence of single regionally-specific climate events are not how we measure global temperature trends.

          • Manorly

            Thank-you for the revelations you have afforded me, and I suppose many others reading these interactions. So many phrases come to mind, chief among them “none so blind as those who will not see”. What is in it for you to be so dismissive not only of current conditions but of the growing number of credible counterpoints to climate change models that predict an onward march of global warming?

            • Ian5

              “…the growing number of credible counterpoints to climate change models that predict an onward march of global warming?”

              What growing number of counterpoints? Your statement is inconsistent with the actual literature. Also, you need not simply focus on the many excellent climate model projections. Look closely at the observed data. The scientific evidence for warming of the planet’s climate system is unequivocal.
              https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/CUSTOM_GRAPHS/e83a0750-faf9-4813-88e6-ed5558e948a7/graph.html

            • Li D

              “…credible counterpoints…”
              Bwahahahaha.
              Deniers wouldnt know what a credible counterpoint looked like.

              • Manorly

                Credible enough for you?
                The Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age that started in the mid 1300’s and lasted through the mid 1800’s.

      • socalpa

        You are the one “misinformed” .
        .
        The Earth has been in a cooling period since 8.3 kya .

  • Ian5

    David is at it again, promoting yet another rubbish source.

    Written by Bernie Lewin, who has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed article in any scientific journal. Nothing.

    Book published by the global warming policy forum, founded by disinformation professional Nigel Lawson. Written to intentionally mislead and misinform.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Examples of why he is wrong?

    • socalpa

      Perhaps Al Gore ,or, Bill The End is Nye would be more palatable ?

      • Ian5

        The article references the writings of non-scientist Bernie Lewin and his extreme views. If you don’t like the writings of Gore or Nye you are free to criticize them.

    • David Wojick

      Lewin’s book is history, so not something to publish in a scientific journal, not that matters. I personally watched most of what he says happen and he is mostly correct.

    • David Wojick

      Regarding peer reviewed scientific journals, these are edited (that is, controlled) by and written by academics, the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers. In the climate change debate case this determines the journal’s content, which is uniformly alarmist.

      Many years ago I was on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon and the left wing bias was stifling, to say the least. I developed a way to diagram complex issues, which I called the issue tree. See the little text I used in my classes here:
      http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf

      I accepted issue tree diagrams instead of essays and for this I was called a “fascist mind controller” by one of my left wing colleagues. Actually analyzing issues is anathema to these folks and it shows in the climate debate. They prefer ad hominems and arguments from (their) authority. One side fits all. I soon left to work with industry executives who value understanding complex issues.

      • Immortal600

        Ian and Robert will not accept your argument about the bias in journals and institutions of higher learning as you have rightly pointed out. They don’t even understand the science of AGW yet they want to try and discredit those of us who can see that the whole AGW scenario is built upon a house of cards. Their science can’t show it as real. All they can do is make assertions that it is without providing one experiment that can justify their phony theory.

        • Ian5

          “…the whole AGW scenario is built upon a house of cards”

          >> Your usual silly and extreme conspiracy rubbish rejected by virtually every US and international scientific academy the world over. It is you that is making intentionally, misleading unsubstantiated assertions.

          • Immortal600

            Not true. You can’t cite 1 experiment that validates AGW. All you can do is call on authority as your proof. Those organizations aren’t experts either. My statement stands until you can show it wrong. Call it “rubbish” all you like. We know you haven’t a clue.

          • Robert
            • There’s no such thing as “greenhouse gases” and even less of “long-lived greenhouse gases”.

              The graph has no foundation in empirical data, besides it lack for example cloud cover, cosmic radiation and cyclical ocean oscillations.

              Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2 – CO2 Climate Sensitivity So Low It’s ‘Impossible To Detect Or Measure In The Real Atmosphere’
              http://www.newscats.org/?p=13539

              If there really was a “greenhouse effect” it would be possible to measure it, no such empirical data exist.

              .. but hey, alarmists do not need empirical data, or evidence, because it is not about science, facts, CO2., or logic, it’s not even about the climate, – it’s all about the money!

              Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistribution
              http://www.newscats.org/?p=13587

              That is why alarmists, read: COMMUNISTS – are immune when it comes to facts.

              • Robert

                “There’s no such thing as “greenhouse gases” and even less of “long-lived greenhouse gases”.”

                “…newscats…”

                “…alarmists, read: COMMUNISTS…”

                • Immortal600

                  You can’t refute what he wrote. Figures.

                  • Robert

                    Actually, twice today, but here it is again:
                    Actually, as previously listed: ( http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3745606219 ) and previously linked to: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3748799448

                    Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some Internet commenter wants to argue.

                    “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                    USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    And the science condensed :

                    D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • Immortal600

                      “LIKELY” doesn’t cut it. Why can’t you understand that?

                    • Robert

                      Because what you are arguing fits well below unlikely.
                      Because there is no substantive body of research showing any other hypothesis is valid.
                      Because we have a nearly two hundred year body of research working on every hypothesis that’s been presented.

                    • Immortal600

                      You just don’t get it. Climate dynamics at this point in time are very poorly understood and anyone with half a brain realizes that. 200 years? hahahahahaha

                    • Robert

                      Evidence?

                      Gone missing….
                      Unless “hahahahahaha” …….

                    • Immortal600

                      Yeah, I knew you’d have some lame response. That is the limit of your intellect.

                    • Robert

                      Ah, no evidence then.
                      Thanks.

        • Robert

          “…you have rightly pointed out. ”
          He made an unsupported claim.
          Behavior that doesn’t meet standards for a 6th grade report.

          And you accepted that unsupported claim.

          Then, you further follow David”s ad with yoir own unsupportrd assertions: “They don’t even understand the….”

          • Immortal600

            His claims are real. You just refuse to recognize them. How am I not surprised. You don’t understand AGW because you can’t show it is real.

            • Robert

              If his claims “..are real”, then a substantive list of resources supporting them, analysis of the data, meta-analysis, would be there in support.

              Neither you or D.W. have done so.

              • Immortal600

                Neither have you when it comes to showing AGW is real. assertions are all you have.

                • Robert

                  Actually, as previously listed: ( http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3745606219 ) and previously linked to: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3748799448

                  Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some Internet commenter wants to argue.

                  “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                  USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  And the science condensed :

                  D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  • Immortal600

                    ASSERTIONS that are “likely”. hahahahahahaha

                    Yet we are supposed to believe you???

                  • Prolapsadores

                    Extremely likely? Have they missed classes in statistics? This is computer model crap based on General Circulation Models that fails to predict anything and the climate sensitivity is feeded in the model even though they dont have a clue what it is. Fake science and computer games.

                    • Robert

                      Your list of assertions would have an aura of verisimilitude if you linked to supporting evidence.

                      Then again, perhaps that is why you didn’t.

                    • Prolapsadores

                      Talk to the ‘scientist’ who developed the 100 million dollar GSM and ask why it fails 97 %. Nature is not virtual reality. Magic I or II, have you tried it or do you prefer Fortran? Link to the evidence, all people see the laughable mistakes and failure of predictions and notorious cheating of historical data. Mann and Gore with the hockey-stick fraud is one of hundreds of such sick alarmist tricks to build a fake story on man made climate fiction.

                    • Robert

                      Your list of assertions would have an aura of verisimilitude if you linked to supporting evidence.

                      Then again, perhaps with at least eight denialist talking points with nothing to support them, is why you didn’t.

                    • Prolapsadores

                      So you are a denier of climate fraud, good for you. Stick to your climate fiction and religious affinity, but dont bother us with your patological convictions based on biased climate computer models which is spurious and swamped with wishful thinking.

                    • Robert

                      Assertions aren’t facts, though on denialist blogs they are often used interchangably. Bring forward what you read to inform your thinking,

                      Missing evidence in your posts supporting your attacks and assertations points to your not having read past those blog postings.

                      “…. biased climate computer models which is spurious …”

                    • Robert

                      “…’scientist’ who developed the 100 million dollar GSM and ask why it fails 97 %.”

                      “Mann and Gore with the hockey-stick fraud …”

        • Robert

          “Their science can’t show it as real. All they can do is make assertions ….”
          “..phony theory.”

          On the face of it, your comment is unsupported

          http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3745606219

          • Immortal600

            It is a phony theory you just can show is real.

      • Robert

        Wow. Sure didn’t take long to invoke politics, “… the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers.”

        With no evidence.

        From a professional skeptic.

        • David Wojick

          There are plenty of polls that support this. Something like 80% of academics are Democrats and most of the rest are Independents. Very few are Republicans, less than 5% I think, maybe way less.

          • Robert

            Cite?
            Gone missing.

      • Robert

        Wow. Sure didn’t take long to invoke the conspiracy theory…..

        “..edited (that is, controlled) by and written by academics,….”

        With no evidence.

        From a professional skeptic.

        • David Wojick

          Almost all journal editors and contributors are academics. It is called publish or perish.

          • Robert

            So?
            What evidence do you have that the science is wrong?

            Point to substantive evidence, not your anecdotal ‘stifling’.

            • Immortal600

              That is not how it works. Can you show the science is correct? Do you have just one experiment that shows it as real?

              • Robert

                Oh, yes, we don’t need no stinking journals,….. let’s pretend we’re fully competent climate scientists and argue physics and chemistry on an Internet comment thread on a political opinion blog.

                Here’s the real question: Why do you think arguing the science is the best use of your time when the rest of the world is discussing the best policies and act!ions to prevent, mitigate, adapt to what the science says is happening?

                • Immortal600

                  You really are a simpleton. The science isn’t saying anything bad is happening. A bunch of people, getting paid mind you, put together papers of doom and gloom and idiots like you soak it up as real. You are convincing no one here, Robert. Why? Simply because you haven’t a clue.

                  • Robert

                    “A bunch of people, getting paid mind you, put together papers…”

                    Ah, a nearly two hundred year long global, politically driven conspiracy….

                    Thanks.

                    • Immortal600

                      You’re welcome. Your 200 year statement unmasks you as not having a clue.

                    • Robert

                      “Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. ”
                      https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

                    • Immortal600

                      So what? Do you know that HEAT is not a conserved quantity? Think about that for a while. Look it up. HEAT and ENERGY are two different concepts. Like I said, look it up.

                    • Robert

                      Oh, bother….
                      Please tell us what you’ve read to support your thinking.

                      And, your argument was about early research.

                      Now…

                    • Immortal600

                      You’ve been exposed as a moron who comes here arguing about something you can’t substantiate. Run along, Robert. Mommy is calling you for lunch.

                    • Robert

                      So, no evidence.
                      And when your assertion based on ignorance is shown , you move to insulting.

                      Thanks for the demonstration.

                    • Grumnut1

                      I think it’s pizza.
                      And it’s fresh out of the oven.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So inducing energy into say a hot plate, makes it colder.
                      Good to know.

                    • Grumnut1

                      You’re right. He was out by 6 years.

                  • Grumnut1

                    No, and he can’t read either. And neither can the governments of 198 countries, plus your own military.

              • Grumnut1

                How many do you want?

            • When did data models become science??

              Empirical data and real world measurements are real science, supported by real peer-reviewed reports, logic and known physical laws.

              Example: Henry’s law, Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures and First Law of Thermodynamics, to mention a few.

              • Robert

                And?

              • Grumnut1

                Try to mention some more.

            • Robert Dekko

              Denialists Angered By Notion The Truth Has Liberal Bias.. in other news, Dogs Have Tails

          • Grumnut1

            Yes, most scientists who don’t publish are instantly killed.

            • David Wojick

              If they are academics they get a “terminal year” in which to find other employment. Not killed, just terminated. However, most scientists are not academics and do not publish in academic journals. Me for instance.

              • Grumnut1

                Terminated with extreme prejudice?

        • 9.8m/ss

          With climate science deniers, it always boils down to that conspiracy theory.

      • classicalmusiclover

        Your comment is basically one sweeping ad hominem fallacy (journals are “controlled by “left-wing” academics; therefore they lack credibility and their arguments are invalid), so your disparagement of ad hominem argument is nonsensical.

        In addition, as someone who claims to be an academic oneself, surely you are aware that there is such a thing as a valid appeal to authority: the appeal to relevant expertise.

        • David Wojick

          I never said any such thing. My point is just that not publishing in left wing scholarly journals is not a valid argument against a position.

          BTW I am not a academic. I left academia in 1976, to work in the real world.

          • Robert

            You are claiming the science isn’t valid because:
            “Regarding peer reviewed scientific journals, these are edited (that is, controlled) by and written by academics, the overwhelming majority of whom are left wingers. In the climate change debate case this determines the journal’s content, which is uniformly alarmist.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3747426946

            Your words.

            • The “green” nazi left doesn’t do peer-review, it’s all dishonest, alarmist PAL-review BS!

              Got to keep the grants coming ..

              • Robert

                “..nazi left…”

                • MYTH BUSTED: Actually, Yes, Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal (Updated 28.07.2017)
                  http://www.newscats.org/?p=6608

                  The more government programs the more leftist it is ..
                  Wealth redistribution is a “social” – program, “green, read: sick! program. As it grow more totalitarian (totalitarianism) the more it looks like nazism.

                  Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistribution
                  http://www.newscats.org/?p=13587

                  • Robert

                    “newscats”

                    “The more government programs the more leftist it is ..
                    Wealth redistribution is a “social” – program, “green, read: sick! … “

            • David Wojick

              I never said it was not valid, just that it is uniformly alarmist, hence one sided. I regard the scientific debate as real. I suspect that you do not.

              • Robert

                Perhaps accusing editors being “..left wingers…”

                So where, exactly, is the evidence?

                And a good, well researched and cited review of how the science is being subverted…

                But that seems to have gone missing over the past decades also…..

          • classicalmusiclover

            What is your evidence that the leading science journals–such as Nature, Science Magazine, Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, and Oceanography, just to name 4–are “left wing?” Please be specific.

            • Two words: Grant money!!

              • classicalmusiclover

                Almost none of which goes into the pockets of the scientists who are able to procure it.

                Indeed, the proprietor of this website, former Limbaugh TV producer-turned-climate-skeptic Marc Morano, makes more money misinforming the public than Michael Mann does conducting research.

                Moreover, scientists are contractually required to repay grant money if they are found misusing it or committing fraud.

                In addition grants are subject to intense oversight and are awarded competitively.

                • Yes, leftist “scientists” work for free ..

                  • classicalmusiclover

                    Scientists are generally salaried workers, employed to conduct research and to teach.

                    They do not personally profit from grant money.

                    You also put the word scientists in scare quotes. Are you trying to claim they aren’t actually real scientists?

                    You have no evidence that the scientists are “leftists.”

                    Tell me, since you profess to be “skeptical” of many things.

                    Are you as skeptical of evolutionary biology and the theory of evolution as you are of mainstream climate science and the existence of greenhouse gases?

                    • Mainstream climate science is 100% correct, there’s no (Man Made) Global Warming, there’s no “greenhouse gases” and humans can’t control the sun no matter how much “green” taxes we pay to the (communist) elite.

                      No, the earth is not 6000 years old and life has evolved over billions of years ..

                      3.5 Billion-Year-Old Fossils Challenge Ideas About Earth’s Start
                      http://www.newscats.org/?p=13491

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Considering that every widely used atmospheric physics textbook discusses the greenhouse effect and that the notion that water vapor, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases is taught in literally every accredited university science department, what do you propose be done about it?

                      Mandatory firings? Revocation of credentials and accreditation from bogus institutions like Yale, Cornell, and MIT for pushing fake “science”?

                    • Let me repost:

                      U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

                      “We can now say with great confidence that no serious mainstream climate scientist (up to the current generation of rent seekers) gave the GHE the time of day. This new revelation vindicates what experts like Tim Ball have been saying all along: the GHE was already debunked by Professor H. W.Woods in 1909.”
                      http://www.newscats.org/?p=11824

                      Key words: “up to the current generation of rent seekers”

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Citing your own science-denial blog in support of your claim is the essence of tautology and carries no credibility.

                      “Rent seekers” is a term popularized by the eminently dishonest non-scientist James Delingpole to insinuate that those who are thus labeled would not have a job were it not for some fraud.

                    • Peter Olins

                      ‘If you are going to lie, make it a big one.’

                      I have to admire the chutzpah of your newscat piece(1) in citing a 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences(2) about the effect of atmospheric CO2 emissions, which makes the exact OPPOSITE conclusion to the one that you claim it does!

                      I can only assume that you think your readers are so stupid or lazy that they trust you without checking, while you feed them the false conclusion that they want to believe.

                      The Internet can be a source of lively debate and enlightenment, but what you are doing is EVIL.

                      (1) http://www.newscats.org/?p=11824
                      (2) https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chapter/2#2

                    • ‘If you are going to lie, make it a big one.’…you might want to take your own advice.

                      I read both links you posted, and unless you are into Orwellian “newspeak,” Roald J Larson’s link and the NAP link say the same thing. In fact, the NAP summary even admits there are serious oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models and that any implied CO2 induced warming could be DECADES away if at all. They hedge their bets by fence-sitting on “we just can’t find any…..BUT the oceans may absorb all that heat anyway, so…..blah, blah, blah.”

                      May as well have flipped a coin and then used that result as their summary.

                    • Grumnut1

                      “any implied CO2 induced warming could be DECADES away if at all. ”
                      Except it was decades ago. You need to turn your clock around.

                    • It is now 2018, there was an El Nino warming in 1998, but we are still waiting for the huge increase due to CO2….tick, toc, tick, toc,…

                      The parameter being tracked by the “High Priests of the RELIGION of Climate Change” is the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature for the ENTIRE EARTH from 1880 to 2018. The INCREASE over this period is from ~288K to 288.8K, — 0.3%!. So over a period of 138 years, the increase in the YEARLY AVERAGE of the temperature of the ENTIRE EARTH is 0.8 degrees. For the first 100 years, the temperature measurements DID NOT include the oceans, but now they do ONLY to create the ILLUSION of an INCREASE in the average.

                      The thermometer you have on your porch to measure the outside air temperature at your location all year long probably goes from -40C to +40C, yet the RELIGION of MAN-CAUSED GLOBULL WARMING wants to FRIGHTEN you with an increase in the ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE of the ENTIRE EARTH (including DESERTS) of LESS THAN ONE DEGREE over 138 years and wants YOU to join them in forcing the governments of all the nations of the Earth into committing ECONOMIC SUICIDE to try to STOP that 0.8 degree increase from SETTING THE EARTH ON FIRE.

                      I have a better suggestion, they can all go to HELL and try to put out some REAL fires.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Exactly!
                      So you don’t see it then?

                    • THE ONLY GLOBAL WARMING CHART YOU NEED FROM NOW ON
                      POSTED ON OCTOBER 21, 2015 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATE
                      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/climate
                      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/the-only-global-warming-chart-you-need-from-now-on.php

                      When I make charts and graphs, I generally make it a practice to scale the vertical axis of a chart from zero (0) to the upper bound of the range. Compressing a chart’s vertical axis can be grossly misleading.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So, this is what you wanted me to see.
                      GREEN WEE. . . OH FORGET IT, I GIVE UP

                      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/green-wee-oh-forget-it-i-give-up.php

                      Your other chart states we have risen CO2 levels by 44% since 1880.
                      Are you sticking by your claim?

                    • Wow, no wonder you believe in the fairy tale of AGW. I gave you TWO links, one to the chart I referenced in my comment and another to a series of articles on Powerline Blog, and you wandered off into the sticks chasing a rabbit and came up with a UNICORN…..GREEN WEE. . . OH FORGET IT, I GIVE UP.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Didn’t you look at your own link?

                      UNICORN…..GREEN WEE. . . OH FORGET IT, I GIVE UP.

                      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/green-wee-oh-forget-it-i-give-up.php

                      What point were you trying to make with that link to that article?
                      Please explain.

                      The other link proves my point.
                      It also contains malware, so thanks for that.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9172d1712541f783be3278041df38d37920c3699821ca2c07545b931a1a3bd2.gif

                    • I have no idea how you got on a link with malware coming from POWERLINE BLOG, one of the top bloggers in the world. Hinderaker is a LAWYER, and was instrumental in exposing Dan Rather and his phony “GW Bush National Guard Letters” during the 2004 presidential campaign. His integrity is unquestioned by Left and Right.

                      The chart I linked to shows how the disingenuous CAGW Alarmists use a MICROSCOPE to plot the FRACTION OF A DEGREE vertical scale vs. YEARS or even HUNDREDS of years to give an extremely SKEWED scaling to IMPLY a HUGE variation in temperature anomalies over time where there is NOT one.

                      You must be agreeing with me if you say I made YOUR point.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So you’re saying it IS a 26% increase in CO2 between 1959 and 2009 as your chart shows.
                      Or are you denying your chart?
                      By the way, the page has now been re-written,
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b51dcd9a2b82a0c71675db367fa0d40785f1c83b198bfc455aead66542b70e0.gif

                    • Here is the chart:
                      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/the-only-global-warming-chart-you-need-from-now-on.php

                      Click on it and you get the chart enlarged:
                      https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg

                      With the upper and lower bounds shown, the variation is virtually ZERO over a 135 year period.

                      Stop trying to misrepresent what the chart shows. 10% or 20% or 90% of virtually ZERO is still virtually ZERO.

                    • Grumnut1
                    • “New math” or “Common Core” victim, are you? I keep pointing you to the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY chart but you keep wandering off chasing rabbits.

                      https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg

                      Calculate the number of years from 1880 to 2015…yes, you may use a life line.

                      The change in temperature during this long time frame is insignificant, just like the SCARE of CAGW Alarmism.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Then why show me the other graph?

                    • Silly me, when I posted the URL to the ENTIRE article, I thought you might be interested in reading all of it. I didn’t want you to accuse me of cherry picking something from the article and misrepresenting what it shows…some people do that, you know.

                      There are TWO graphs, the one showing the irrelevant CO2 change and how it is hyped by CAGW Alarmists using scale manipulation and the temperature graph and how it is usually shown with a GROSSLY distorted scale to SCARE people.

                      Try this one, it should be an easy concept to grasp:

                      Fire: HOT!

                    • Grumnut1

                      Which one?
                      The one where someone drew a flat line.
                      I can do that.
                      Can’t you?

                    • Immortal600

                      That dude is a kook. I don’t bother responding to him. He is as you said “unhinged”.

                    • I’ve debated “it” before on other sites. It deflects constantly and creates strawman arguments and ignores the assertion I make and sometimes ends with juvenile insults.

                      There is no way to educate those types no matter how much evidence and logic you present. It really baffles me how some people are determined to destroy the heritage they leave for their descendants based on Junk Science and destructive political philosophies, but then man has been succumbing to the “Siren Call” of evil since the Garden of Eden.

                    • CO2 concentration had NOTHING to do with the temperature change, it FOLLOWS temperature variations, it does not CAUSE them.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So Caillon et al were wrong in the Vostock Ice Core Papers when they wrote:

                      ” Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).”
                      That means CO2 increase preceded the warming in the Northern Hemisphere, actually by about 600 years.
                      And in particular “First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (∼5000 years)”
                      That’s the paper you’ve been quoting all this time thinking it says the opposite.

                      Caillon et al, Science 2003

                      Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (∼5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

                      Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ∼4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate.

                    • Yep.

                    • Grumnut1

                      That’s the one you were quoting to me.
                      So…you admit you’re wrong then.

                      Checkmate.
                      Sorry.

                      Adrian

                    • You are really unhinged. I have no idea what you are babbling. I asserted that the change in CO2 concentration has NOTHING to do with changing the average temperature of the Earth. PERIOD. CO2 concentration FOLLOWS temperature changes.

                      You come back with a strawman about irrelevant ice core studies, assign it to me, knock it over, and then declare victory. You must be the world Champion at SOLITAIRE.

                      Bye.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Hey, don’t blame me for quoting your argument.
                      You should have thought about it a bit longer.
                      Bye.

                    • I don’t blame you for “quoting my argument,” you didn’t even address it, you ignored it and took off after rabbits….happy hunting.

                    • Grumnut1

                      I’m glad you don’t blame me for quoting your argument.
                      I’m not even sure how you could be guilty of that.
                      And my father was a magistrate.
                      How do you think he would have passed sentence on that charge?
                      Or even that sentence?

                    • Peter Olins

                      Larson blatantly claimed that,
                      “America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere.”

                      It appears that he didn’t bother to read the report he cited in his opinion piece on newscat [not to be confused with “old scat”?]. Otherwise he would have quoted the actual report:

                      The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth’s surface and thus increase the air temperature in the troposphere.

                      We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ± 1.5°C.

                      This was written about four decades ago!; the ongoing work done since then continues to refine these estimates.

                      Rather than coming to Larson’s defense, TEWS, why not read the report yourself?
                      Disagreement is fine, but misquoting is dishonest.

                    • JoeFarmer

                      “…report he cited in his opinion piece on newscat [not to be confused with “old scat”?].”

                      Game, set and match!

                    • I agree with this part of your comment: “Disagreement is fine, but misquoting is dishonest.”

                      The portion of the report I saw that supports Larson’s assertion clearly stated that “…the OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS and INACCURACIES in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principle conclusions….”…HUH? … or in other words, “NO MATTER HOW INACCURATE or OVERSIMPLIFIED the models are, they can STILL be trusted to provide the conclusion we have already PREDETERMINED.”

                      Yeah, no bias there.

                    • Robert

                      “…humans can’t control the sun no matter how much “green” taxes we pay to the (communist) elite.”

                      Ah, the incoherency, illogic, and an attempt at political namecalling….
                      And not even craziest part of the sentence:

                      “…there’s no (Man Made) Global Warming, there’s no “greenhouse gases” …”

              • Robert
            • David Wojick

              In the case of Science, PNAS and Nature my evidence is direct observation. Beyond that it is poll results indicating that 80+% of academics are either Democrats or left leaning independents. The few conservatives there are are mostly in either engineering or the business departmets.

              • Robert

                “..direct observation. ” And, again, no examples being shown.

              • classicalmusiclover

                1. I would be interested in your posting an example of your “direct observation” that those journals present fake science or “leftist” science.

                2. That distribution of political affiliation has actually obtained for over a century and is a reflection of the alignment between interest in a particular field and the potential political leanings of the person in question. Most academic disciplines pay less well than a person could earn using the same skills in the business sector. Conservatives are as over-represented in the business sector as liberals are in the education fields. Since business schools tend to hire from the business sector rather than from within academia, they will hire more conservatives. Unlike many of the research sciences, engineering rewards exactitude and certainty, so it attracts people who are suspicious of the concept of scientific uncertainty, which is central in any of the research sciences. The principal common denominator among scholarly studies of the psychological basis for political leanings is that people who are suspicious of change, uncertainty, and complexity are more likely to lean and vote conservative than people who are comfortable with them.

                3. That said, the rules of the scientific method–and the not-unrelated historical method–impose a rigor on academic work that filters out political bias from the scholarly result.

              • Robert

                And, again, no citations.
                “..it is poll results indicating that…”

              • Robert

                Again, yet again, no examples….
                “..my evidence is direct observation. “

              • classicalmusiclover

                I would simply add to my comment below that if scientists were represented in academia and journal publication in a 50:50 proportion conservative to liberal that such concepts as creationism, young-earth geology, astrophysics-skepticism, and climate/greenhouse gas denial would be highly over-represented with respect to their support in the scientific community.

                • Robert

                  Iowa Bill Would Force ‘Partisan Balance’ in Hiring
                  By Colleen Flaherty
                  February 21, 2017

                  “It’s only been a month since an Iowa lawmaker proposed ending tenure at the state’s public institutions, and two weeks since state legislators published a bill that would gut collective bargaining for faculty members. Now another legislator wants to enforce what he calls “partisan balance” among Iowa’s faculty members. Iowa Republican Senator Mark Chelgren’s bill would require that no professor or instructor be hired if his or her most recent party affiliation would “cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by 10 percent” the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other dominant party. Politically undeclared professors would not be included in the tally.”
                  https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/02/21/iowa-bill-would-force-partisan-balance-hiring

                  • classicalmusiclover

                    You realize that posting this at CFACT will attract the attention of those who would most loudly applaud Chelgren’s bill. After all, the audience here would see this as a golden opportunity to smash the hegemony of leftist science.

                    • Robert

                      I’m looking forward to reading their best rationales as to why it hasn’t gotten out of committee..

                    • Robert

                      There’re some comments that are…’bout as sensible as BigWave”s climate science…..

        • The gatekeepers at “science” journals is absultely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

          It’s all about the money (rent and grants).

          Read all about how corrupt the former science journals has become:

          University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

          Climategate in Review
          http://smallthoughts.com/climategate/

          • classicalmusiclover

            What you are describing are not “gatekeepers” and putting the word “science” in scare quotes when referring to science journals only makes you look like a fool.

            What you are describing are the legitimate concerns of scientists at the publication of poorly-vetted science by a journal with a questionable peer-review process.

            Are you saying that Nature, Science Magazine, Oceanography, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. are not actually science journals or publish “fake science?”

            It is somehow unsurprising that your sources for “climategate” are a series of cherry-picked, out of context quotes from one of the British tabloids that hyped the faux scandal in the first place, and a “skeptic” blog.

            In the real world, “climategate” was a grotesque misrepresentation of the communications of scientists on the basis of hacked and stolen emails, which did nothing to undermine the basic science of AGW. In the deny-o-sphere, it was proof of a worldwide conspiracy of lying scientists discrediting every leading principle of climate science.

            Take your pick (oh, wait; you already have).

          • 9.8m/ss

            Only a ridiculous paranoid would interpret “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” as anything but obvious sarcasm. Nobody can “redefine” the refereed literature. Except, of course, the unseen decades-old global conspiracy presenting an extensive body of false climate science. Who could organize such a plot and keep his own identity secret for so long? George Soros and Al Gore have been mentioned, but my money’s on Ernst Blofeld.

      • Ian5

        “… I was called a “fascist mind controller” by one of my left wing colleagues. Actually analyzing issues is anathema to these folks and it shows in the climate debate. They prefer ad hominems and arguments from (their) authority. One side fits all. I soon left to work with industry executives who value understanding complex issues.”

        >> Lots of broad brush, value-laden statements there. Illustrates that you clearly have difficulty with objective analysis and separating science from ideology.

  • Brin Jenkins

    Gravity has the greatest influence on our Universe, but is still the least understood. The Earth’s solar orbit is complex, and our understanding is limited to short term observation, tree rings, deep ocean sediment and computer modelling. I distrust computer models almost as much as tea leaves because of the Marxist green politics involved. Supposition and repetition is no proof of cause.

  • Robert

    Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some Internet commenter wants to argue.

    “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
    USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And the science condensed :

    D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • reagangs

      Like I said, It’s all smoke and mirrors along with a lot of computer modeling, right or wrong, and hyper UN socialism; basically fear mongering guess work with cooked data (climate gate). I’m sure old socialist Georgie Soros and his UN, EU and US minions and sheeple are involved. Someone once said; “a lie repeated enough will eventually become the truth”. If I remember, it was V. Lenin, the god father of the former USSR.

      • Robert

        Thanks for that string of denialist phrases.

        {Start} That sure proves the last nearly two centuries of research was wrong {/s}

      • 9.8m/ss

        I’d like to know how far back this conspiracy you’ve discovered goes. Was Guy Callendar a Soros minion? Howabout Svante Arrhenius, did Soros get to him?

        • socalpa

          I’ll answer that .
          It ( conspiracy) goes back to ~ 1990 . When the possibility that instilling climate or weather fear in the population would produce hundreds of billions to Trillions in taxes …worked in EU ,failed in Australia and U.S .
          .
          And of course , many billions for supportive research .
          .
          The earlier attempts ( The global cooing scare of the 70s failed ) to damage western industrial states failed as temps began rising as the ocean current phases went positive .. Encouraged by the success of the ozone layer fear campaign..
          .
          The self interested parties tried again .
          .
          Control of the means of production ,always the goal . Instilling fear in the proles ,the means .

          • Robert

            [At this moment a noise is heard, far off, but swiftly approaching, of a beast panting in its headlong course, and of a long trumpeting.]

            BERENGER: I couldn’t refuse. It wouldn’t have been nice . . .

            JEAN: Did I go there?

            BERENGER: Well, perhaps it was because you weren’t invited.

            WAITRESS: [coming out of café] Good morning, gentlemen. Can I get you something to drink?

            [The noise becomes very loud.]

            JEAN: [to BERENGER, almost shouting to make himself heard above the noise which he has not become conscious of]
            True, I was not invited. That honor was denied me. But in any case, I can assure you, that even if I had been invited, I would not have gone, because . . .

            [The noise has become intense.]

            What’s going on?

            [The noise of a powerful, heavy animal, galloping at great speed is heard very close; the sound of panting.]

            Whatever is it?

            WAITRESS: Whatever is it?

            RHINOCEROS
            by Eugene Ionesco.

            • socalpa

              Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
              .
              Robert finds a new flavor ..
              .
              … of …
              .
              Spam !

              • Grumnut1

                You mean Spam flavour?
                How about chocolate?

          • Grumnut1

            What means?
            What do the means..mean?

        • Robert Dekko

          Four words: Deep State Time Machine!

      • Hermit

        You do realize that all science is about modelling, and that the best science is about building computer models that make competent predictions or projections?

        Because your articulation makes that anything but obvious.

    • socalpa

      Reliance on authority fallacy ,and spam .

      • Robert

        Plenty of space for your list of sources informing your thinking, your scientific analysis, your showing us why you think the sources given aren’t authoritative.

      • Grumnut1

        I always do.
        If I’m on a budget.

    • David Wojick

      Robert, these are biased alarmist analyses from well known biased alarmist sources. Your long quote is from the IPCC(!), which is ridiculous to begin with. Do us all a favor and list the counter arguments as well. Oh wait, you are probably not familiar with them. Your comments consistently indicate a complete ignorance of the scientific debate.

      • 9.8m/ss

        Roy Spencer posted a handy list of counter arguments. Is that the list you wanted?

      • Robert

        Explain the “..ridiculous to begin with. ”

        Is the IPCC “ridiculous”? If that is what you meant, how so?
        Is it the “long quote” that is “ridiculous”? If that is what you mean, what have you read that informed your thinking?

        “Your long quote is from the IPCC(!), which is ridiculous to begin with. “

        • David Wojick

          It is ridiculous because my article is a critique of the IPCC as hopelessly biased. This then rules out citing the IPCC as a counter argument.

          • Robert

            No, your article is not a “.. critique of the IPCC as hopelessly biased” ; it is a conflation of your misunderstaning of basic science, your political stance, denialist language, united quotes, discussing a single point .

            You’d need a long, long list of resources in any effort to prove a bias in the conclusions reached through the work done by the authors of the report.

            And you can’t even cite the source in this article.

            And, you still have to argue against the rest of the list….

            • David Wojick

              Robert, your idea of a comment is to ask for an essay, which is not going to happen. You are not fooling anyone with this, except maybe yourself.

              • Robert Dekko

                Likely because your “essay” wouldn’t stand up to real scrutiny. You’d have to do things like disprove CO2’s role in the atmosphere and you can’t do that with simple essays, you’d have to actually publish some science, so you have to turn bemoaning about “bias”, as if you would know (and you certainly wouldn’t).

                • Immortal600

                  FIRST, you’d have to PROVE CO2 caused by humans is doing ANYTHING to climate. You can’t do that no matter how many links you provide. You AGW kooks are something else.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    Silly bastard, unless you want me to conduct some experiments on CO2 and it’s causes, linking the people who do those experiments is the only way. Unless you’d like me to just make wild assertions like you… nah, that’s ok, I’ll stick to using CO2’s studied behavior as a GHG.

                    • Immortal600

                      Those studies don’t show CO2 doing anything to the climate, you KOOK. Linking Wikipedia????? You make me laugh!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      I make you angry :} It shows CO2’s absorption in the longwave IR band, CO2 slows longwave radiation lost to space which increases temperature which increases evaporation, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. BTW, Wikipedia is just a resource, like a library, you might as well get pissed if I linked Britannica..

                    • Immortal600

                      “increases temperature which increases evaporation, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere.”

                      Prove that statement. Show the mechanism how it is done.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      So… no linking.. but prove the statement… that’s an impossible standard unless you want me to video tape myself conducting all the experiments myself…

                    • Immortal600

                      OK. Link to a valid experiment that proves the statement. An EXPERIMENT.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Instead of just the statement, why don’t I link to experiments that prove the premise as well?
                      Absorption Spectra of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Region of 2 .7 Microns– W. S. Benedict and Earle K. Plyler, 1951

                      Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997– Harries et al., 2001

                      Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

                      Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming– Chung et al. 2014

                    • Robert

                      Remember that basically the only places you’ll find people arguing the science is these comentt threads.
                      And even in disqus world, those arguments aren’t brought up on much else than the cfact,climdep,infowar type articles.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Shh, Rob, I’m having fun! 😀

                    • Immortal600

                      hehehehehehe….sure you are Mr. Projectionist!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Projectionist? I’ve never worked in a movie theater in my life!

                    • Immortal600

                      You are dense. You ‘Project’ all your fallacies onto others.You don’t even know the definition of the word ‘trapped’. OK, you can have the last word. I have already exposed you as a FRAUD. LMAO

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Hehe, ok, just keep telling yourself that.. I’ll sleep well tonight knowing I’m taken seriously by those that matter..

                    • Robert

                      Thanks for taking the time and effort to craft well written and supported posts!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      It matters so much! They’re really trying to supress the truth for short term windfall gain from oil and mining while they screw our future generations… delusional…

                    • Robert

                      Indeed.
                      We need to make sure our local, state and national Reps and Senators know that the diarrhea coming from these paid for anti-science platforms are not representative of what the rest of the world understands.

                      And thanks again for your searching efforts and bringing forward those resources. I’m using a couple from your post
                      ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754790412 )
                      in a letter to my state Sen who is claiming our pro-environmental efforts are really attacks on the poor (a rebated carbon tax) and somehow weakening our military….

                    • John G

                      In case you haven’t already sent it, you might want to include this reference in your letter:

                      https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-115.pdf

                      See the chart on page 26. It shows that a fully rebated fee of $49 / ton CO2e on the production of fossil fuels would provide the lowest 10% on the income scale a 9% net raise on per-person after tax income. That’s from a reliable source.

                      The military considers climate change a threat multiplier, and spends an inordinate amount of time, manpower, and resources trying to move fuel around, good renewable energy solutions would help them in many ways. Getting off fossil fuels would also greatly reduce the tensions in the middle east, and pull a lot of the power source away from Russia. The military would benefit greatly from those.

                      Thanks for writing letters!

                    • Robert

                      Great points!
                      And thanks for the graphic.

                      Still waiting for responses from my local reps as to sources of their claims. One of the oddities is they say the same thing/nunbers…..maybe I should prod them a bit with that graphic.

                    • Robert

                      John G is well worth following.
                      Solid, well-written, researched posts. Also, active in RL.

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/would_you_like_some_oil_wastewater_with_your_produce/#comment-3754639317

                • Robert

                  It isn’t science, that’s just the veneer. Basically, paranoid conspiracy theory.

                  “… It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. ”
                  David Wojick
                  https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

              • Robert

                You tried to write an essay. And, according to your own assertion, missed discussing the purpose , the thesis.
                You then used this that essay as your reason for saying my post was incorrect.

                And now say you won’t argue against the other pieces of support I gave.

                Translate the won’t to can’t.

                Thanks again for r demonstrationt

          • 9.8m/ss

            The IPCC produces a comprehensive survey of the professional literature. (It ignores, of course, political opinion blogs written by weather readers who work at “hot talk” political opinion radio stations.) If it’s “hopelessly biased,” then the professional literature is hopelessly biased. Is that your allegation?

            • Robert

              IPCC comes under attack because it was easier to fund denialist blogs.

              They tried funding science and hoping the funding would produce results like they claim caused the preponderance of research showing us to be responsible.

              • R. Kooi

                He would simply call you a fake…that you are rigging the results…cause it does not fit his religious zealotry.

              • eric m

                The IPCC is a politics first, science takes a ride in the backseat organization. Findings of scientists are disseminated and reworked to fit into a political narrative,country by country.

                • CB

                  “The IPCC is a politics first, science takes a ride in the backseat organization.”

                  Did you misspell “CFACT”?

                  Can you figure out why a PR outfit for the fossil fuel industry might lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel, Eric?

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

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

                  • eric m

                    Monday morning quarterbacking our use of fossil fuels is quite ridiculous considering all it has given us. It’s about as ridiculous as claiming Exxon or any specific company can be looked down upon. If Exxon went away ,it would of been quickly replaced by another oil vendor. Filling a need who’s positive’s far outweighed it’s negatives. yes you can blame oil companies for an increase in co2 levels; a by product of the population explosion brought upon by this miracle product fossil fuels. via longer lives , advances in medicine etc. In fact there is a direct correlation to the population explosion and increased co2 levels. Thankfully co2 is not any type of heat control knob we were led to believe . Demonizing it is quite silly.

                    • CB

                      “Monday morning quarterbacking our use of fossil fuels is quite ridiculous”

                      Okay.

                      What does it have to do with the fact that this media outlet is funded by the industry changing the climate?

                      Can you figure out why that gives them a conflict of interest in writing about climate change, Eric?

                      “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

                      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

                    • eric m

                      I don’t agree with the statement that ” they are an industry who is changing the climate ” atleast not in the manner you describe. increased co2 levels are a result of the population explosion simply by human activity . which is the result of fossil fuels. (lucky it hasn’t resulted in the temp changes they predicted) so what is the plan ? population control? I am not against new technologies but jumping the gun with not ready for prime time solar and wind ,while cutting cheaper things like coal will only hurt the poor. furthermore human activity has a minor role , almost not worth mentioning . it is not the primary driver of any change . The climate always changes . always has always will . they have been predicting doom since forever, but the predictions always seem to fail and the earth keeps doing it’s thing. I realize weather isn’t climate but right now it is frfeezing in los angeles . I am quite thankful for my gas heater.

            • David Wojick

              The IPCC reports are only comprehensive in that they comprehensively mine the scientific literature for studies that support alarmism. The structure of these reports is completely argumentative, analogous to a legal brief that argues a case in Court. They are in no way a survey of the literature. This systematic bias has been documented in great detail in a number of lengthy counter reports.

              • jmac

                More derp.

                • David Wojick

                  You need to actually say something specific, otherwise you are just wasting our time.

                  • Immortal600

                    He isn’t capable. He has been shown many times to not having a clue about climate dynamics. His are strictly appeals to authortity.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    Why would he need to be specific when everything you said is wrong?

                    • Immortal600

                      Why, just because YOU say so? hahahahahaha
                      Oh! the irony!!

                      hahahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      No, that would be silly 🙂 He’s wrong because what he says lacks truth…

                    • Immortal600

                      According to YOU. You can’t show that what he says isn’t truth. You can only ASSERT that it isn’t. BIG difference.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      According to me and 18 reputable American scientific associations, The DOD, The US Navy, 11 international science Academies, 200 international scientific research bodies, the vast majority of publishing climate scientists, NASA, etc, etc.

                      And you haaaave… David Wojik and the Heartland Institute… perhaps Anthony Watts..?… and the Heartland Institute… anyone reputable? No…

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Ed Berry a PHD in Atmospheric Physics. I only need ONE to destroy all that you have. This isn’t a popularity contest.

                      I know you have no clue about climate dynamics, SO explain in your own words how CO2 drives climate change. Can YOU do that???? You can start with how CO2 absorbs certain bands of IR and go from there. Let’s hear it !!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Dr. Ed Berry a PHD in Atmospheric Physics

                      Edwin Berry’s only real argument against AGW is that models aren’t 100% accurate and therefore don’t work. As I said, maps aren’t 100% accurate but they still work. Ed and you obviously don’t understand applied statistics.

                      I know you have no clue about climate dynamics

                      I’m a scientist and work on studying volcanoes, I definitely do know about climate dynamics.

                      Can YOU do that???? You can start with how CO2 absorbs certain bands of IR and go from there. Let’s hear it !!

                      Ooff, so angry hahaha. Yes, I can, in fact, I just wrote you in one of my responses, but I’ll humor you and repeat myself.
                      CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation, scattering a portion back down. This causes energy to be trapped and slows the loss to space. This build up of energy increases the temperature of the atmosphere, which then causes water vapor to increase as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function temperature. This increases cloud cover and, since water vapor is the prime GHG, drives more warming.

                    • Immortal600

                      Your first mistake is to say that energy is trapped. NO, Mr. Scientist. it isn’t. It is immediately re-emitted and goes in all directions. You should realize that ENERGY, HEAT, and TEMPERATURE are closely related concepts but NOT the same thing. What happens to that IR once it leaves the CO2 molecule is the big mystery. Energy, as you know Mr. Scientist, is a CONSERVED quantity and HEAT is NOT a conserved quantity.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Your first mistake is to say that energy is trapped. NO, Mr. Scientist. it isn’t. It is immediately re-emitted and goes in all directions

                      Right, which is the freaking definition of being trapped… it’s like a blanket.

                      You should realize that ENERGY, HEAT, and TEMPERATURE are closely related concepts but NOT the same thing.

                      Did I ever say they were the same thing? No.

                      What happens to that IR once it leaves the CO2 molecule is the big mystery.

                      You just said what happens to it… *facepalm* it gets scattered in all directions. Incidentally, there’s also secondary absorption from neighboring CO2, meaning it gets re-absorbed and then re-emitted again (and again). The more CO2 the less chance the IR has to escape…

                      Energy, as you know Mr. Scientist, is a CONSERVED quantity and HEAT is NOT a conserved quantity.

                      Right, but when energy is trapped it leads to heating… Mr. Not-A-Scientist.

                    • Immortal600

                      A lot of smake and mirrors from you, Mr. Fraud scientist. That 400ppm is really an amazing thing! LMAO at YOU, the fool.

                    • David Wojick

                      Yes CO2 is a GHG, but we have long periods of time in which CO2 increases but estimated temperatures do not, so it is clear that increasing CO2 need not increase temperature. Whether it will or not is what the debate is mostly about. You are simply ignoring the complexities of the climate system. So far it looks like it has not.
                      See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

                      By the way, CO2 does not re-emit the photons that it absorbs. If it did there would be no GH effect. But conversely no heat is trapped. GHGs also remove all of the incoming solar heat. Your argument is simply simple minded.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      long periods of time in which CO2 increases but estimated temperatures do not

                      30-40 year terms are not really “long periods of time”, though the temperature has still increased an average of 0.63C even according to Roy Spencer’s graph, which is no trivial thing. Since CO2 isn’t the only controller of temperature, internal variability can cause temperatures to decrease over these relatively short periods of time. Over longer periods, such as just over a century, the warming trend is more noticeable. Over even longer periods of time, such as thousand year time cycles, the effect of CO2 on temperature is much more noticeable. Over a hundred thousand year time span it becomes abundantly obvious that atmospheric CO2 is directly tied to the global temperature of Earth.

                      CO2 does not re-emit the photons that it absorbs.”

                      1) If “CO2 is a GHG” like you said then it has the ability to trap heat energy. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display. Talk of simple minded ideas from the simple minded is hilarious.
                      2) Then where does the energy go? Does it just get vacuumed up into the molecule, never to be seen again? That would cause the molecule to sit in an excited vibrational mode indefinitely. Your argument makes no sense and goes against thermodynamics.

                      This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.

                      Source: UCAR – Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation

                    • John G

                      Natural variability does not go away simply because greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are now the main driving force.

                      Look at this temperature graph. See the variability between the individual years? Then look at the trend over the last 13 decades.

                      Then put your engineering cap on and consider. There is a long term trend that was predicted 100 years ago, and the implications of those being correct spell major problems for us if we don’t make major changes.

                      Even Exxon, Shell, and BP now agree we can wait no longer to address the issue:

                      http://clcouncil.org/founding-members

                      Since there are fair, beneficial, viable solutions to choose from why would anyone be against acting? It seems to be only the scientifically illiterate, the fanatical free market fundamentalists, and the shills they pay that are delaying action.

                      While we’re on the subject, here’s a good market-based, revenue neutral solution – Carbon Fee and Dividend: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend

                    • David Wojick

                      If there is a long term trend, what about the little ice age? Emerging from that would be natural variability.

                      Then too see my http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

                      There is no physical evidence of human caused warming.

                    • John G

                      There is a long term natural trend…. of cooling. And there is a short-term, much more rapid trend of man-made warming. Here is a 10,000 year view.

                      CO2: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
                      (45% rise since 1800, half of that in the last 30 years).

                      Global average surface temperature: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D
                      (see the third image – 10,000 year temperature graph)

                      The little ice age came and went, visibly but insignificant compared to the scale of the warming we’ve seen in the last 140 years. See the graph at the top of this page: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                    • Robert

                      New research that adds to your list of good sources.

                      Pollen data shows humans reversed natural global cooling:
                      Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the history of human civilization

                      The authors attempted to put the recent warming (last century or so) into context. They found that the recent temperatures are much higher than temperatures over the past 11,000 years. In fact, according to their calculations, 2016 was warmer than 99.41% of all simulated Holocene years.

                      This finding is profound. First of all, it means that human greenhouse gas emissions were easily able to overturn what should be a natural cooling trend. Second, the warming we have caused is far outside of the natural range. According to Dr. Shuman:

                      The major significance here is temperature across two continents over the last 11,000 years. The paper provides a geologically long-term perspective on recent temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere and the ability of climate models, such as the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) models used in the study, to predict the changes. Climate simulations do a strikingly good job of forecasting the changes.

                      I would say it is significant that temperatures of the most recent decade exceed the warmest temperatures of our reconstruction by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit, having few — if any — precedents over the last 11,000 years. Additionally, we learned that the climate fluctuates naturally over the last 11,000 years and would have led to cooling today in the absence of human activity.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/19/pollen-data-shows-humans-reversed-natural-global-cooling

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Nice, thanks

                    • David Wojick

                      John, enough with the junk graphs. You seem not to have heard what I am saying. As an engineer I learned early on to question the data that I was given. Most of what you are giving me is actually impossible to know.

                      What about my point that there is no CO2 warming since actual measurements began? Let’s start there, not 10,000 years ago.

                    • John G

                      I already addressed your mistaken belief about recorded temperatures with a link to a page that provides a graph with four independent scientific organizations’ global average temperature measurements since record keeping began in 1880.

                      Here is it again, from NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                      Why do you disrespect the third image in the NOAA site I provided for the 10,000 year temperature history? Just because you don’t understand how climate scientists and other fields of science use proxy information to get accurate estimates of past temperatures doesn’t mean it is not possible for them to do so. Perhaps you believe only the science you have studied is real? Or perhaps you think only the science that supports your political and ideological opinions is real?

                      You have a PhD, but it is not in climate science. You are a journalist who writes for CFACT, a PR firm that takes money from industry and free market fundamentalists to actively promote anti-mainstream science views when acting on them would require government intervention in markets which would affect profits of industries it takes money from. That is not a non-biased, credible source. Watch this ‘Merchants of Doubt’ book tour talk for more on that: https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

                      It seems that in addition to putting rude labels on things you don’t agree with, you may also be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Unless you have had a few years of climate science from those trained in the field, or spent several thousand hours studying it from all sides (as I have), I think you ought to consider this possibility:

                      “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

                    • Robert Dekko

                      In that case, David, I question everything you say because it’s totally ignorant crap.

                    • Robert

                      Note also, d.W. basically cites his own writing as evidence…
                      Until it’s linked with some unpublished graph..

                    • Robert

                      Interesting that David Wojick thinks that NASA, Scripps, NOAA, as well as a variety of peer reviewed papers all developed “junk graphs”.

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      It’s a conspiracy! All the world’s scientific institutions are telling the same elaborate lie (b’cuz they’re all commies!), and have been for decades, but the fossil fuel investors’ public relations men have blown the whistle on the plot!

                    • John G

                      Yes, and I guess he believes that 50% of the world’s coral is just playing dead, instead of being dead, killed in the last 30 years from rapidly warming seas.

                      And perhaps he thinks the East coast lobsters have moved northward by several states in the last several decades because they want a change of scenery, not because they are following their preferred water temperature as it shifts closer the pole.

                      And Miami is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on pumps and to raise critical roads because they want a better view.

                      It certainly is amazing he can ignore all the science and all the facts, cling to his unsupported position, and blame everyone else for being deceived by a grand hoax.

                      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ~ Upton Sinclair

                      CFACT may pay its ‘journalists’ exceptionally well to write the ‘literature’ they put online!

                    • Robert

                      Well put and describes the breadth and depth of denialism
                      “It certainly is amazing he can ignore all the science and all the facts, cling to his unsupported position, and blame everyone else for being deceived by a grand hoax.”

                    • John G

                      A great summary of the greenhouse warming effect from Robert Dekko: “CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation, scattering a portion back down. This causes energy to be trapped and slows the loss to space.”

                      A poor strawman argument rebutal from David Wojick: “CO2 does not re-emit the photons that it absorbs.”

                      How a combination of fossil fuel industry money and free market fundamentalists support PR firms like CFACT and writers like David Wojick and we end up with lame strawman arguments and delay in a rational response to address climate change: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org

                      How we know the truth: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                      A fair, beneficial, efficient, nonpartisan solution with global reach – Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustments: http//citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend

                      A list of conservative economists and big corporations that endorse using a market-based, revenue neutral approach like Carbon Fee and Dividend: http://clcouncil.org/founding-members

                      What everyone should do every month to help enable Congress to act: http://bit.ly/CCL-write-congress

                    • David Wojick

                      Let me put it this way, John and Robert. If the CO2 simply re-emits the LW photons it absorbs, then how does it heat the air, that is the N and O2, which is what the greenhouse effect does?

                      The GHGs like CO2 do emit photons, which go up and down, but they are not the photons that they absorb. The energy from the absorbed photons immediately goes out into the air as heat. That heat eventually causes GHGs to emit photons, but they are not directly related to the absorbed photons. This is the basic greenhouse effect, which apparently neither of you understands.

                      Your personal attacks are irrelevant and just make you look stupid.

                    • David Wojick

                      By the way, this is important because it means that increasing CO2 cannot increase surface temperatures without first increasing air temperatures. But the satellites tell us that CO2 warming has not happened, so if there is surface warming it is not due to increased CO2 in the air.

                    • Robert

                      Couple more like that and your employers are going to embargo your writing until it gets checked .

                    • John G

                      Ah, think I see why you don’t understand. Electromagnetism is complicated.

                      The short answer is that heat, infra red radiation, and long wave photons are all terms used to describe exactly the same thing. Electromagnetic energy behaves differently depending on how it is measured, and we use different terms to describe it based on the context, but only for semantic reasons. When I decode your question it looks like you are treating heat, photons, and LW IR as different things, which they are not.

                      Which basically brings us back to my original recommendation that you do a lot more open minded reading, or go to school for climate science for a while, if you wish to write intelligently about it.

                    • Robert

                      Maybe his expertise is in analyzing research for % of model use…

                      David Wojick and Patrick Michaels in today”s ‘proof that something we don’t like about science is best published on a political blog’

                      “The glut of modeling in “climate science”
                      “So this is basically what today’s so-called “climate science” amounts to. It is speculative computer models all the way down. Hot climate models that drive adverse impact models that then drive economic cost models. And we spend billions of dollars a year on this junk.”
                      http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/20/the-glut-of-modeling-in-climate-science/

                    • John G

                      Yes, no fact-based publisher is going to publish such nonsense. That explains why you don’t find such work in Scientific American.

                      Getting paid by industry to mislead the public by discrediting science to delay sensible government action to protect the environment or people is what ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is all about. Heartland Institute and CFACT are classic examples of PR firms set up to take in the money and output the misleading propaganda about science.

                      One question is why would a journalist want to have their name associated with the groups.gAnother question is how much longer such fraudulent activity will be legal to do.

                      https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

                    • David Wojick

                      A “market-based, revenue neutral approach like Carbon Fee and Dividend” to a non-existent problem is like making people kill themselves but giving them the choice of how to do it. About 85% of human used energy worldwide is from fossil fuels. You want to make this expensive, which is simply social suicide.

                      But if you return the money in a dividend then you do not make it expensive, in which case nothing happens except it requires a big and expensive money processing operation.

                      Either way it is nuts.

                    • John G

                      It sounds like you haven’t given it much thought, or you don’t understand how the free market works.

                      A steadily rising fee on the production of fossil fuels based on the carbon emissions that will be released when they are burned will raise the price of fossil fuels, not all energy options. When those other options become cheaper than fossil fuels, consumers will naturally chose them instead. It’s fixing the broken energy market by internalizing the external costs of using fossil fuels into their price.

                      We are all being harmed by the use of fossil fuels in many ways. According to science, the most costly of the many was is the effects of global warming and ocean acidification. In tax policy lingo, a fee is used to recoup a third party that is being harmed. That’s all of us.

                      The magic of the policy is that returning all the money back equally has several powerful effects:

                      1) Middle income households break even, though their energy choices will change over time.

                      2) Low income households come out ahead. The extra income this provides them each month let’s them buy more, which grows the economy and jobs.

                      3) No one has to lose – those who will pay more overall from the higher prices due to the fee are generally those who can afford to do so, and who can afford to make changes earlier to use different options.

                      Even if global warming were not happening it would be a good idea to do this. Just to eliminate a lot of pollution and associated health costs and suffering. And also to direct our investors and manufacturers away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy solutions. According to the Paris Climate Accord agreement, every country in the world wants to drastically reduce their carbon emissions. Why should we let China and Germany get all the business of providing those solutions?

                      In other words, Carbon Fee and Dividend fixes the broken energy market, helps the poor, reduces carbon emissions globally, grows the economy, protects middle income households’ purchasing power, eliminates a lot of pollution, eliminates a lot of property rights issues (no more new pipelines), and directs US businesses at the biggest market opportunity of this century.

                      Benefits of Carbon Fee and Dividend: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report

                      Tell me, who does not want all that!

                    • Robert

                      And d.w.’s response….

                      “..non-existent problem..”


                      Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study University of Oxford project finds Trump supporters consume largest volume of ‘junk news’ on Facebook and Twitter

                      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

                    • AnOilMan

                      I’m more a fan of the navy work. It represents the bulk of the heat on the planet… And you got a guy you know somewhere who says.. ALL ALLIED NAVIES ARE LYING! Do tell. Do tell.

                      The science behind global warming isn’t theory. Its applied engineering, and its old. So be precise and specific when you claim all allied nations are engaged in treason. Failure to provide evidence that all allied navies are engaged in treason, is a clear and absolute admission by you that you are a lying sack. Like Tim Ball;
                      https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/climate-denier-tim-ball-trump-approved-not-credible-enough-stand-accountable-libel-0

                    • Immortal600

                      Linking to Desmogblog is a joke.

                    • AnOilMan

                      So you state clearly and absolutely that you are a lying sack, and absolutely state you have clue what you’re talking about. Done.

                      So, Lying Sack Immortal600, I was quoting the Judge, not desmogblog. And don’t forget that you believe everything Tim Ball does. Here’s more articles for you to read;
                      “incompetent, inattentive and, perhaps, indifferent to the truth”
                      http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-green-party-s-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.23174209
                      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-green-party-leader-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.4536096
                      http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-green-party-leader-andrew-weaver-has-defamation-lawsuit-against-retired-prof-thrown-out

                      And here’s Judith Curry, who also claims all of known physics is wrong. That must be a safe place for you to go. 🙂
                      https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/14/update-libel-cases-and-the-climate-wars/

                      Do you know how much Judith Curry make per year working for oil and gas? She’s like a super scientist out competing hundred man teams of weather monitoring. Cool huh?

                    • Immortal600

                      You aren’t worth any more time. You have no clue. Figures. Get back to me when you grow up.

                    • AnOilMan

                      Lying Sack Immortal600, cowards like you always run away. Its the hallmark of your values.

                      I have a patent on measuring GHGs for pipeline safety. I used and work with the data representing the bulk of the heat on the planet… that would be Anti Submarine Warfare data;
                      https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

                      Oh and here’s a great one for you… instant read energy absorption from orbit for the oil and gas industry;
                      http://www.ghgsat.com/

                      So tell me how all this doesn’t work? Its used to keep you alive and safe. Trillions of dollars of national defense depends on it. Its not new theory, this old applied engineering, and well understood.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are just plain stupid. Try to impress someone else with your garbage. You obviously don’t have a clue. Idiots like you are a dime a dozen.

                    • AnOilMan

                      Lying Sack Immortal600 I thought you ran a way, but still you come back to low brow troll. *sigh* Hows the IQ way down there? I bet elevators smell different to you too.

                      I’m sure I sound like a Kook to you. I’m well grounded in reality, math, physics and the like. That’s a pretty extreme contrast to you. You have steadfastly refused to back your position on anything, and pretended that all of reality is different. Wow. Talk about Kooky. Heck you totally agree with charlatans.

                      Hey do you know why working with natural gas is so hard? All the GHGs present are such strong energy absorbers, and its a b*tch to separate them out. It doesn’t take much to render a chunk of the spectrum unusable. (What do I know? I got a patent on this stuff.)

                    • Immortal600

                      You are a KOOK

              • Robert

                IPCC has been delivering Assessment Reports since their inception in 1988.
                What we haven’t seen is anything similar from any other organization.

                If the IPCC reports are as cherry-picked and biased as you claim, it should have been trivial to produce something countering any one of them.

                • David Wojick

                  To begin with, the NIPCC has produced five or more large reports since 2009, each designed specifically to counter the IPCC (hence NIPCC). See http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.

                  In addition there have been hundreds of articles, probably thousands, doing the same thing. I have written many myself over the last 20 years, including the one were are commenting on here. Apparently you are unaware of this huge literature.

                  • Robert

                    Note that the N extends to the purpose of your reports. Attempts at negatating, not actually walking through the whole body of work and doing an analysis.

                    Yes, there are a bunch of blog posts saying things..
                    “… It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. ”
                    David Wojick
                    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                    • David Wojick

                      Not sure what you are asking for Robert. The IPCC reports are thousands of pages long. Line by line rebuttals would be tens of thousands of pages. Skeptics don’t have that kind of money, while the IPCC is funded by big governments. (The US just announced that it will no longer pay.)

                      It is a good trick — produce giant reports that no one can afford to refute. But like I said, the alarmism has been extensively documented piecemeal.

                    • Robert

                      Ah…. rebuttal… negating….

                      If the science you claim is so solid, then your Nipcc rebuttals would be “.. thousands of pages long” and not rebuttals, but a logical, thorough body of analysis supporting a conclusion.

                      But, instead, what we have is a documented history of deceit, duplicity, and dollars being used to delay moving to a saner, productive, cleaner future.

                    • Robert

                      Ah, you finally said something accurate
                      https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wont-pay-for-the-worlds-best-climate-science/

                      “Despite the IPCC’s relative low cost and undeniably outsized scientific importance, Republican lawmakers have been trying to zero out the US’s contribution for years. It’s a familiar dance: Early every year, the State Department sends a budget request to the appropriations committees in both the Senate and House of Representatives. And every year, the respective committees write back, detailing their thoughts on which programs do and don’t deserve money. For most of Barack Obama’s presidency, the notes from the House of Representatives have trashed environmental programs, including the payouts to the IPCC. But then the bill would make its way to the Senate, and some politician or aide would work these programs back into the budget. And because the amount was so small ($2 million is less than a percent of a percent of the total US budget), the quibble apparently wasn’t worth expending political capital over.”

                      Another example of confusing politics and science.
                      And, remember, we’re in a CR, headed towards another ‘showdown’….

                    • Robert

                      Funny. Here you wing on about how hard a rebuttal would be, and otherwhere*, you say” Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals ….”

                      * the paper you ask jmac to go look for…

                      http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830502320268151?journalCode=eaea

                    • John G

                      Have you seen the Fourth National Climate Assessment, Executive Summary, two page ‘Highlights’?

                      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                      This is from NASA, NOAA, the DOE, a dozen other scientific organizations, and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, and was released by the Trump administration as required by law a few months ago.

                      “Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.

                      This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

                      “Extremely likely” is defined in this document as a 95-100% confidence.

                      You know, even Exxon says we need to deal with global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/engagement-to-address-climate-change

                    • David Wojick
                    • R. Kooi

                      Kindly show us where Millions of scientists in 150 nations around the world are getting funding in return for lying?

                      and I’ll show you that fossil fuel industry controls 6.5% of the World’s ENTIRE Gross Domestic Product…trillions of dollars and political raw power……and

                      I’ll bet you, you’ll never guess who has the greater incentive to lie there asses off…..you do it for giggles…they are in control.

                    • David Wojick

                      This has nothing to do with the USGCRP study you brought up or my articles. I never said anyone was lying, nor are there 1.5 million climate scientists. Your imagination seems to be getting the better of you, wasting everyone’s time.

                    • John G

                      About the USGCRP and the Fourth National Climate Assessment:

                      “The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw the production of this stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts.

                      The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses.”

                      “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) serves as the administrative lead agency for the preparation of NCA4. The CSSR Federal Science Steering Committee (SSC) has representatives from three agencies (NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], and the Department of Energy [DOE]); USGCRP; and three Coordinating Lead Authors, all of whom were Federal employees during the development of this report. Following a public notice for author nominations in March 2016, the SSC selected the writing team, consisting of scientists representing Federal agencies, national laboratories, universities, and the private sector. Contributing Authors were requested to provide special input to the Lead Authors to help with specific issues of the assessment.”

                      “…. and an expert panel convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS, 21 December 2016–13 March 2017);3 and (vi) by the SGCR again (3–24 May 2017) to confirm the Review Editor conclusions that all public and NAS comments were adequately addressed. In October 2016, an 11-member core writing team was tasked with capturing the most important CSSR key findings and generating an Executive Summary.”

                      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-about/

                      From the two-page Highlights section of the Executive Summary:

                      “Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.

                      This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

                      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                      In other words, you don’t respect the scientific conclusions of NOAA, NASA, the DOE, a dozen other scientific organizations, and the National Academy of Sciences. So just where do you get your science from?

                    • David Wojick

                      The USGCRP is wildly alarmist. More than even the IPCC. See these:

                      USGCRP articles

                      Measuring bias in the U.S. federally-funded climate research

                      Posted on August 23, 2016 | 655 Comments

                      by David Wojick

                      “Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents indicates that the climate science research budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change. For decades climate research has been dominated by a paradigm that posits dangerous, human-induced global warming. This concept is usually referred to as “anthropogenic global warming” or simply AGW. The competing paradigm, which posits the possible attribution of significant natural variability, is barely mentioned. We call this bias “paradigm protection.””

                      https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/23/measuring-bias-in-the-u-s-federally-funded-climate-research/

                      Refocusing the USGCRP

                      Posted on August 29, 2016 | 371 Comments

                      by David Wojick

                      “Our goal here is to begin to articulate a research program into the role of recent long-term natural variability in climate change. Long-term natural variability has implications for the modeling of future climate changes, on the scale of decades to centuries. It is called dec-cen variability. Dec-cen variability also relates to explaining the climate changes that have occurred over the last century or so. This is what is called the attribution problem; that is, how much of these historical changes are attributable to human activity, versus natural variability?”

                      https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/

                    • John G

                      The USGCRP is fact and evidence based. The fact is the scientific theory of human-caused global warming is over 100 years old. What you call biased is science pursuing more detailed understanding of accepted understanding.

                      https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

                      I’m sure you know this, stop your games and come clean.

                    • David Wojick

                      That humans are causing global warming is a conjecture, not an established fact. In fact it seems to be false:
                      See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

                    • Robert Dekko

                      “It’s conjecture and I can prove it… by quoting myself saying so!”

                    • John G

                      I don’t need to see another article from you that you were most likely paid to write as propaganda.

                      I read science, which contradicts your opinion.

                      Like the Fourth National Climate Assessment: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                      I understand how science works. I don’t get my opinions about it from industry- and idiology-funded PR sites like CFACT.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      “USGCRP is biased and I can prove it… by quoting myself saying so!”

                    • Robert

                      Oh, seems it isn’t really money…

                      “Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.” David Wojick

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                    • R. Kooi

                      and I thought Trump was suffering with dementia
                      (along with the nation at his hands)
                      WOJICK…is that Danish for Wood TICK?

                    • CB

                      “WOJICK…is that Danish for Wood TICK?”

                      Nej, det tror jeg ikke…

                      I’m getting “mide” or “fnatmide” as a type of mite that could be a tick. I don’t think they have ticks in Denmark! Maybe it’s too cold… wait, no, they are getting a rash of them because of warming. Imagine that!

                      “A damp spring followed by days of warm sunshine has created ideal conditions for wood ticks in Denmark.”

                      cphpost.dk/news/denmark-enduring-a-terrible-tick-season.html

                    • R. Kooi

                      WOJICK…is that Danish for Woodie ICK ?
                      ***
                      TRUMPS Procreate under those conditions!
                      ***
                      We have reports to the Lone Star Tick…once a southern tick because of the cold weather…now it is a Mid West Tick…..and we have had our first interlopers in Wisconsin…
                      ***
                      Midwest Ticks Show Signs of ‘Heartland Virus’
                      Recently discovered disease struck two Missouri farmers
                      WEBMD
                      ***
                      “….spruce bark beetles is killing trees across Southcentral Alaska, as far north as the Alaska Range, fulfilling a prediction by a pioneering Alaska climate change biologist.

                      A survey completed by state and federal forest officials shows dead spruce trees over nearly 450,000 acres of the region, 30 times more than 2014, and extending 200 miles north of previous outbreaks.

                      The beetles normally are present in low numbers in Alaska forests, but in the 1990s they exploded across the Kenai Peninsula, turning nearly 5 million acres of big spruce trees red and then ghostly gray. The outbreak was the largest ever at that time.

                      Heavily hit areas were completely transformed. The disappearance of large, shady trees changed the fire, soil and water conditions on the land and the plant and animal life in the forest, including human life. Downed trunks made terrain nearly impassable.

                      A new briefing paper by U.S. Forest Service supervisory entomologist John Lundquist describes that destruction in announcing the new outbreak to the north.

                      “The current spruce beetle outbreak has the potential to expand and intensify and have an immense impact on the values held by people living in Alaska,” Lundquist wrote.
                      ****

                    • John G

                      Wow David, you and I live in very different worlds.

                      You write for (and I assume get paid by?) CFACT. As far as I can tell, CFACT is a PR firm that takes industry money to muddle people’s understanding of sound scientific principles to delay rational government action to protect human health or property.

                      I write too, and have been published over twenty times, but I do my work as a volunteer of Citizens Climate Lobby. I do what I do because I know you’re wrong about the science. (The clue that you are wrong is that no scientific organization anywhere in the world supports your position on the science – only other idiology-led and industry-fed PR firms like ALEC, AFP, Marshall Institute, API, Heartland Institute, and Fox News support your position).

                      I do it because CCL is promoting a solution to use efficient market forces to move the world off fossil fuels and on to clean energy solutions in a way that protects household purchasing power, and that Republicans and Democrats can support: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend

                      You may feel you are fighting a good fight using all the available took at your disposal. But ignoring science, when it is telling you the risks are so high, is irrational. What happens when you change your mind. David, five years from now: “Oops, sorry, I was wrong. Too bad we’ve screwed up the entire climate of our planet. Sorry about that.”

                      Jerry Taylor did that, but caught himself in time. He worked for the Cato Institute for twenty years, doing what you do now, until eventually the evidence became overwhelming and he changed his position on human-caused climate change. You should watch this talk very carefully:
                      https://youtu.be/TKt9ouoGvj0

                      Maintaining your position given the potential for error in judgement is not a risk anyone should be allowed to take, no matter how small a chance it is you could be wrong. The consequences are catastrophic if you are wrong. It’s not even like scientists are saying they suspect it’s happening. They are making statements saying they are ‘very confident’, and ‘extremely likey’. Treating the giant body of scientific knowledge and multiple independent lines of evidence as you do shows a blatant disregard for future generations and the rest of life on Earth.

                      Given the contradictions between mainstream science and your position, your efforts to delay rational action will likely be considered criminal at some point in the future. Ignorance about basic science is no excuse. You should have learned enough science in middle school to know that what you promote is at odds with reality.

                      I hold you responsible for putting my daughter’s future at risk. How you can stay confident about your position, when it is against so many trained scientists, whole fields of science, measurements continue to set new records, and as life continues to be increasingly more affected? It should keep you up at night. It does me.

                      Have you watched Chasing Coral yet? It’s free on Netflix streaming. Did you know we’ve killed off half the world’s coral in the last 30 years, due mostly to global warming? And that most of the rest is expected to go in the next thirty with the future warming that is already built into the system from the fossil fuels we are burning now? And that somewhere between 500 million and a billion people rely on coral reefs ecosystems for their livelihoods and their main supply of protein? It’s a rotten world you are setting us up for.

                    • Jackie Chiles the legend

                      I truly appreciate you putting up a fight and trying to enlighten those in the dark corners of the earth. I have to say I’m a bit too much of a skeptic to believe the change you seek can be done, but I do believe that we need to be the change we want to see. And you are leading a great example and on the humane and correct side of the information war against the disinformation war being waged on the general public.

                    • John G

                      Thanks, I do what I can. I give CCL a lot of credit for showing me how to be effective, and giving me their total support and trust. CCL is composed of some incredible people.

                      I’ll share a little CCL inspiration here:

                      https://youtu.be/BpeXeZ9h9Vg

                      https://youtu.be/W0-VcW_6RGA

                      https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8

                      https://youtu.be/0lzWpMfYIuM

                      The House Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus discussed in the second video is now up to 70 members of Congress.

                      We are going to do this, because we have to. You can help. Just send Congress a quick note every month: http://bit.ly/CCL-write-congress

                      They count those, and when we get to a million a month Congress will act. Please pass it on.

                    • David Wojick

                      We do live in different worlds John. My mission is to stop the climate alarm movement, which you are a part of. I consider it as wrong and dangerous as communism was 100 years ago. That it has captured all of the liberal institutions I do not dispute.

                    • John G

                      You are obviously well trained in the methods that have been used to delay action to address a scientifically identified threat. Your ‘mission’ as you call it is part of a PR machine whose methods have been exposed, and your era is ending. Merchants of Doubt, and numerous articles make this perfectly clear.

                      Exxon, Koch, and others have payed your industry to spread misinformation to the public about global warming to delay action for decades: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

                      This was blatant fraud. It put greed above morality, humanity, and life on Earth, and hopefully those responsible will be held accountable in the near future.

                      Global warming, mainly from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions, is the biggest threat to my family’s future, your family’s future, and most of the rest of life on Earth, according to mainstream science. Here’s a more on that, according to NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                      If you include NASA in your list of ‘liberal institutions’, then explain this list of 200 scientific organizations from around the world that agree with NASA’s conclusions: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

                      Compare that with who supports your position. There is not even one major scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports your position.

                      This is no global, liberal conspiracy to alarm people about human-caused global warming. 20% of Americans are alarmed, but that is based on facts. There is scientific consensus about the problem and the cause.

                      It is clear that what you are against is taking to address any threat to human civilization and life on Earth identified by mainstream science. Perhaps this is because you do not trust government involvement in addressing any market problem, or you think you’ll be okay, only others will be harmed, or you just make so much money doing what you do you’re okay milking the system out of shortsighted greed.

                      Your technique is shallow and old. Labeling what you oppose a ‘climate alarm movement’ puts a negative tag on anything that speaks against your position – be that mainstream science, concerned dads, or responsible leaders. You use derogatory labels to deflect attention from your anti-science position.

                      Happily, the grip that your ilk has enabled major fossil fuel industry players and free market fundamentalists to have on Congress is greatly weakening. For example:

                      Did you know that 70 Congressional Representatives have joined the Climate Solutions Caucus in two years, and half of them are Republicans?

                      Did you know that many states are talking about putting a price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels?

                      Did you know that even Exxon now says it’s time to act? They are one of the founding members of the Climate Leadership Council: http://clcouncil.org

                      It’s time for you to come clean too.

                    • David Wojick

                      Thanks for the tip to Citizens’ Climate Lobby, John. I just did an article on them:
                      “Revenue Neutral” Nonsense.
                      http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/23/revenue-neutral-nonsense/

                      Not very positive.

                    • John G

                      Well David, considering where you got it published I’m not sure anyone with any sense will take it very seriously anyway. But I’ll check it out, and put my comments below it.

                    • Robert

                      Underneath the science , the bedrock belief:

                      “Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.” David Wojick
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                    • John G

                      Huh! Apparently David believes there is a mass hysteria of the entire global scientific community, all to… promote scientists’ hidden socialist desires and to lead us all down the slippery slope to a Communist takeover of the world? Ha! What nonsense! Do real people honestly think like that? It sounds like the twisted rationalization of an evil madman in any James Bond flick.

                      I’ll bet him a dollar he’s wrong, and that NASA is right about human-caused climate change from greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, and I’ll give him ten to one odds. On second thought, make that ten dollars, and twenty to one odds to encourage him to take the bet.

                      He has constructed a false reality amidst overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Apparently he has not yet read ‘Merchants of Doubt’, because if he had done so, after a moment of self reflection he would see the repeated history of the failures of ignorant profit- and ideology- driven parasites who worked to confuse the general population about some bit of scientific knowledge to delay rational government intervention to protect health or property, for their own evil, misguided self-interests.

                      The difference in the case of climate change from burning fossil fuels is they are putting human civilization itself at stake, as well as most of the rest of life on Earth.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      They’re just trying to push all this “save the environment” guff because, of course… Big Solar!…. or some crap…

                      hahaha

                    • Robert

                      “Do real people honestly think like that? ”
                      Well, we can assume at least one……

                      Maybe some denialst could hack into the socialist party server and publish all the climate scientist membership #s….

                      “He has constructed a false reality amidst overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ” That goes a long way toward explaining why d.w. is having such difficulty getting his curriculum developed…..

                      Legendary Climate Scientist Likes a GOP Proposal on Global Warming
                      James Hansen, the “father of climate change awareness,” wants the same carbon fee–and-dividend strategy proposed by Republicans
                      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/legendary-climate-scientist-likes-a-gop-proposal-on-global-warming/

                    • John G

                      Actually, the NIPCC copies the style, size, and graphics of the IPCC reports (all sizes), so it’s pretty cheap for them to make. The only difference is the IPCC is science, and the NIPCC is cherry-picked information from the entire body of science that supports a pre-determined conclusion.

                      There is a great description of the difference in ‘Merchants of Doubt’….watch this for three minutes or so, then I would be interested in your thoughts:

                      https://youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=33m32s

                  • John G

                    The IPCC versus the NIPCC Process:

                    Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

                    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

                    Read or watch ‘Merchants of Doubt’ for a look behind the curtain of Heartland, CFACT, and other promoters of the NIPCC.

                    • David Wojick

                      The IPCC has a huge budget that the NIPCC does not have. Plus alarmist scientists outnumber skeptics about 4 to 1. But science and truth do not care about money and numbers. The point is that the debate is real.

                    • John G

                      The IPCC does science, taking all studies, data, and facts into consideration.

                      The NIPCC does PR, taking only the cherry picked bits of studies that agree with their predetermined conclusion.

                      You can’t compare the two, it’s apples and oranges: science verses industry- and idiology-funded FUD.

                      The science: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml

                  • John G

                    I can think of two complimentary definitions of ‘literature’, and a third not so complimentary. Let’s consider in which category your ‘huge literature’ belongs.

                    There is scientific literature. This is work that has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. Notice that ‘peer-reviewed’ does not mean the work has been reviewed by those who agree with the data and conclusions. It means review by other scientists, whose interest is in truth, facts, and knowledge, and they gain stature in their own reputation by pointing out weaknesses in the arguments and data presented in the original work. The reviews are generally also publicly available.

                    Then there is artful writing as literature. Examples include Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Emily Bronte. You know it when you see it, and your ‘huge literature’ obviously fails to meet this definition, though as an item of fiction it is an interesting thing to study.

                    Finally, there is Marketing and PR ‘literature’. Like the junk mail flyers we all get in the mail and most of us throw out/recycle without reading. Paid for by industry and corporations, or the very wealthy, to manipulate opinion and wants. Though your ‘huge literature’ doesn’t come in the mail, it is published on opinion websites and blogs that can be easily ignored.

                    The ‘huge literature’ you refer to as supporting your position falls into the last category.

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      The thing most people don’t know about peer reviewed literature is that the reviewers are anonymous, and they are carefully chosen competitors of the author whose work they review. Choosing anonymous competitors is the most important work a journal editor does. If he chooses the authors’ “pals,” as is widely alleged on blogs like this one, he runs the risk of publishing flawed work. Flawed work is quickly exposed by the authors’ competitors. It’s an embarrassment for a journal whose primary asset is its reputation for reliability. (Libraries are constantly reviewing their journal subscriptions. With limited budgets, they can’t afford to carry all the journals their users want, and they drop the least reliable ones.) Journal editors get fired for that.

                    • John G

                      Thanks for the important clarification! That’s even better. I’ve read reviews and responses but never noticed the reviewers names were not divulged. The system works, and since there is of course the public evaluation and dissection of papers’ data and conclusions once published there is no downside to anonymous review. As you say, reputations are at stake and there is a lot to gain by getting the science right.

                      The scientific process would seem to yield a much more reliable foundation on which to drive societal choices, rather than the current process of hobbling along with a failed energy market, the freedom to confuse people about science by knowingly lying about it in mass media, and unlimited, anonymous money in politics. No wonder so many people are jaded about the current political system.

                      Knowing about CFACT funding, and the obfuscation of truth about science it promotes, one wonders how some people can look at themselves in the mirror every morning as they get ready to go do what they do. Big tobacco and other polluting industries used similar PR firms and methods intentionally to delay policies to address the harm and societal costs by confusing people about the scientifically proven connection between smoking and cancer. It is clear that some people are willing to put profits and their own fanatical free market fundamentalist ideology ahead of truth, human life, and in the case of climate change, human civilization and most of the rest of life on Earth as well.

                      http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

                      Perhaps CFACT is the best rationale for a guaranteed minimum income….so no one has to sell themselves so cheaply.

              • Dale

                David. Quote: “The IPCC reports are only comprehensive in that…”
                Excellent explanation. Hopefully you won’t mind if I steal your statement.

              • R. Kooi

                That is all the literature out there worth studying.

                Well over 99% of the Published, Peer Reviewed, Critiqued and Replicated Studies substantiate Global Warming/Climate Changes

                • Dale

                  R. Kool: Perhaps you won’t mind sharing the links to some of these studies? I’m most interested in the published scientific studies clearly demonstrating that the CAGW claims can be replicated.

                  • R. Kooi

                    THAT ‘C’ YOU put in front of CAGW is your preposterous addition..

                    This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED
                    in Temperatues about 7000-8000 years ago.
                    Since then, temps have been slowly falling,
                    in spits & spurts, as we slide into Earth’s
                    most powerful cyclical Event:
                    . Glaciation !
                    .
                    THE CAUSES OF the next ICE AGE continues to this very day
                    BUT
                    the FALLING temps. ENDED ABRUPTLY in the mid to late 1700’s.
                    AND
                    Since then, temps have been rising.
                    .
                    Look for yourself:
                    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
                    .
                    Earth is still Being Pulled, by orbit, AWAY from the Sun.
                    Earth’s Axial Tilt is AWAY from the Sun.
                    .
                    What Terminated Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle.
                    .
                    Only the Enhanced Green House Effect Explains this ongoing event!

                    Look:
                    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
                    .
                    1799
                    Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
                    Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
                    .
                    1799
                    Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes
                    in climate which he stated was probably caused by man.

                    1811
                    Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to
                    Human Activities & Industrialization.
                    .
                    1856
                    “…the work of Eunice Foote, who three years prior to the
                    start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar
                    experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases,
                    such as CO2 and water vapor.
                    .
                    The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention
                    in 1856. …was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases
                    in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                    http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/..
                    .
                    CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
                    .
                    Satellite & surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space
                    at CO2/H2O (& other Green House Gasses)absorption wavelengths.
                    .
                    Ocean & surface temperature measurements continue to climb, even though
                    ALL the CAUSES of Ice Ages continue to this day.

                    These Research studies find the planet
                    continues to accumulate heat. Year after year.

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

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

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

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

                    The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. thermal radiation
                    was consistent with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                    .
                    This research & paper found
                    * * * * * * *
                    “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                    in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                    * * * * * * *
                    This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                    using data from later satellites

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

                    Google: Harries 2001 Research Abstract

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

                    Google: Wang 2009 Research Abstract
                    .
                    A regional study over the central Alps found that
                    downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                    enhanced greenhouse effect
                    .
                    Google: Philipona 2004 research abstract
                    .
                    Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                    allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                    downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                    .
                    Google: Evans 2006 Research abstract
                    .
                    The results lead the authors to conclude that
                    *
                    *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                    that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                    greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
                    by global warming.”
                    .
                    Google: Evans 2006 Research Abstract
                    .
                    This Entire planet is accumulating heat
                    .
                    When there is more energy coming in than escaping back to space,
                    our climate accumulates heat.
                    .
                    The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
                    adding up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land & ice.
                    .
                    Google: Murphy 2009 Research abstract
                    .
                    Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                    Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature
                    record & heat capacity of the troposphere. Land & ice heat content
                    (eg-the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
                    .
                    Google: Murphy 2009 Research Abstract
                    .
                    Google Ocean data: Domingues et al 2008.
                    .
                    From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
                    rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy
                    going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant
                    has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
                    pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
                    .
                    What about after 2003?
                    .
                    A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
                    from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
                    .
                    Google: von Schuckmann 2009
                    .
                    Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the
                    end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with
                    other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance
                    .
                    GOOGLE: Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009
                    .
                    Clearly, The planet continues to accumulate heat.
                    .
                    So we see a direct line of Solid empirical evidence that
                    we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip
                    the rise in CO2 levels.
                    .
                    The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite &
                    surface measurements.
                    .
                    The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
                    planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
                    .
                    Google: Harries 2001 Research Abstract
                    .
                    When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats
                    the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                    .
                    Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                    Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                    .
                    Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                    of infrared radiation returning to earth

                    Google: Wang 2009 Research Abstract
                    .
                    A regional study over the central Alps found that
                    downward infrared radiation is increasing
                    due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
                    .
                    Google: Philipona 2004 research abstract
                    .
                    Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                    allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                    downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                    .
                    Google: Evans 2006 Research abstract
                    .
                    The results lead the Research authors to conclude:

                    “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                    that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                    greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
                    .
                    Google: Evans 2006 Research Abstract
                    .
                    The planet is accumulating heat ! When there is more energy coming in
                    than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat.
                    .
                    The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up
                    the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
                    land and ice
                    .
                    Google: Murphy 2009 Research abstract
                    .
                    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
                    .
                    Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                    Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
                    and heat capacity of the troposphere.
                    Land and ice heat content (eg-the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
                    .
                    Google: Murphy 2009 Research Abstract
                    .
                    Ocean data: Domingues et al 2008.
                    .
                    From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of
                    190,260 gigawatts
                    with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
                    Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
                    imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
                    pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
                    What about after 2003?
                    .
                    A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from
                    ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
                    .
                    Google: von Schuckmann 2009

                    Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end
                    of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of
                    the planet’s energy imbalance
                    .
                    Google: Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009
                    .
                    The planet continues to accumulate heat.
                    .
                    So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
                    Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
                    The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite & surface measurements.
                    .
                    The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
                    planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
                    .
                    https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png
                    .
                    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Kemp_sealevel_20111.png
                    Sea Level Rise
                    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age#img-2

                    • Dale

                      Glad to see that you feel that the “C” should not be there.
                      So…
                      If the claimed AGW is not catastrophic, then why all the worry and expense?
                      l fully agree that there are no catastrophic climate events whatsoever which can be contributed to man’s activities.
                      That was easy…

                    • R. Kooi

                      How has the recent climate changed?

                      Jessica Moore, former CCMS, Prineville, OR KPBSD in Soldotna, AK
                      Updated 6h ago

                      Being in Alaska I observe the symptoms of climate change as observed by the local weather more acutely than those at lower latitudes. The shifts are more extreme here, and politics aside, I’d like to show you what is happening in my area.
                      While others have pointed out already that weather & climate (weather trends over very long spans of time) are different, I can offer you my observations on recent Alaskan weather. The ice on the lake at my place is freezing about 3 weeks later than it did when I was a child (I’m 43), averaging thinner ice in the winters, and leaving about 2 weeks earlier.
                      Consequently, the migratory birds are staying longer on both ends as well. And, the bears are out longer too. While that puts a spin on our predator prey dynamics here on the Kenai Peninsula, so too does the fact that I am now able to grow Zone 4 & 5 plants in my flower beds that once were hardy to only Zone 3..
                      I observe the tree line on the Kenai & Chugach mountain ranges to have steadily marched up the hill (warmer weather affords less permafrost and greater O2, so trees can now sustain themselves at higher altitudes) and where I live thunder & lightning storms in the summer are now common and haven’t been in the past. Similarly, our kettle lakes, which are a product of the most recent glaciation and also the type in my yard, are shrinking in circumference as the weather is warmer. This is because the muskeg is drier and now better able to sustain trees. My home used to host a view of the mountains, and that view is now blocked by birch & white spruce trees, species which don’t like their feet to get wet. As further evidence of this, lakes with trees around them fill in, and the younger trees are shorter than the older ones, demonstrating the shrinking of the lakes.

                      The thawing of permafrost, and subsequent drying of wetlands it changing our biomes up here. As the permafrost thaws, it is releasing an alarming amount of CO2 and methane… which as you know, both trap heat (for they are greenhouse gases in their own right) & this will only exacerbate our problem. That is it’s own topic, however.
                      In the once boggy wetlands (muskeg) of western Alaska, ungulate species are being introduced to forage on grasses and sedges, because such vegetation is now prevalent there and the ground is now firm enough to support the weight of browsers. The estuaries where waterfowl used to come to feed are rather birdless because the area is no longer a wet tidal marsh.
                      Similarly, this drying is having an affect on our fire patterns. Dense with peat moss, now dried out, it is a perfect storm for woodland fires. And, you may notice that many of your fire jumpers and teams are spending an increasing amount of their fire season in Alaska. Indeed, at one point 85% of the landmass of the nation’s fires were in Alaska in 2015:

                      This drying effect is also demonstrated well in our local spruce bark beetle outbreaks. The beetles prefer the warmer, drier, and longer summers, so are having a fantastic time destroying our taiga. This compounds the increase in fire events exponentially and we are now currently due for yet another outbreak.

                      This is separate from the issue of our glaciers receding at an unprecedented rate: one cannot even see either Exit or Portage glaciers from the viewing platforms that were made in the 90’s anymore. The following image demonstrates the measured retreat of the ice.

                      I am not going to assert that my local environment is changing because of climate progression, or that climate is changing because of weather. That is not my interest. All I am doing is demonstrating that the natural environment in my little neck of the woods is different, & my ecosystems are changing as a result.
                      I post this because I am aware that some people do not yet understand that the global climate is indeed changing. We are evidenced with coming out of the last glaciation on time, as compared to all other interglacial periods. But, we are doing so at a clip that is unequivocally unprecedented in Earth’s history. And, just like we could tell that the burn in the ozone hole was man-made in the 80’s, we can tell that we are causing this particular deviation.
                      Many cannot observe their climate or weather changing as acutely as we are able to in the northern latitudes. Thus, my post. It’s Jan 26, 2018 at current. When I was married 24 yrs ago in November there were over 13 feet of snow on the ground in my coastal town (as was customary then), we now have about 3 inches & we’ve not had snow deep enough for snowmobiling here in four winters. Feel free to share my post. Ps- I do not own the photos.

                    • eric m

                      Here is similar reporting by an eyewitness, (from 1922)
                      The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

                      Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

                      Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.-This post is from 1922 -not current

                    • Dale

                      And your links to published to scientific research reports supporting CAGW are???
                      Remember, if they are not catastrophic, they are not worth worrying about or spending another cent on the scam.
                      Perhaps “you” would like to explain in your own words how carbon dioxide, natural or anthropogenic, could possibly significantly increase global temperatures.

                      Oh, and please do not refer us to alarmist blogs like bloomberg or the silly guardian or housewives doing experiments in their kitchens (e.g. Eunice Foote). I’m only interested in “links to actual published scientific research papers”. I’m not going to do searches for you to see if I can find some element of truth in your claims. I’ll leave that up to you.
                      Incidentally, the experiments of Tyndall and Fourier were done in closed containers to block convection and therefore do not represent open atmospheric conditions whatsoever.

                • Robert

                  Explains the ‘N’ in nipcc… can’t offer up science, just ‘no,no,no , I don’t wanna be responsible!’

                  • R. Kooi


                    “The TOTALLY discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new N (non) IPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
                    .
                    (Sadly they make No Effort at being Scientific or Objective)
                    .
                    “But the NIPCC report is NOT a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has NO credibility, scientific or otherwise.

                    “Update:
                    The Heartland Institute is planning to launch Climate Change Reconsidered at an event on September 18.

                    The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus.
                    (The post in PDF format is here.)

                    “With the launch of new NIPCC report,
                    the discredited Heartland Institute goes head to head with the entire world’s foremost climate scientists.

                    Tomorrow the Heartland Institute launches a new report Climate Change Reconsidered.

                    To write the report, Heartland assembled a group it calls the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a particularly revealing choice of name.

                    (essentially a hit squad of entrenched adversaries to the modern scientific world)
                    .
                    “The name, combined with the timing of the release to coincide with the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s upcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),
                    shows
                    that Heartland is attempting to present itself as a legitimate alternative authority to the IPCC.

                    “However,
                    the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility.

                    A few key points show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking:

                    1.
                    The NIPCC does not follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC.
                    The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly UN-scientific tactics to do so.

                    ((The Heartland Institute is responsible for funding the Fraudulent COVERS to TIME MAGAZINE & Scientific American supposedly from the 70’s…but were in fact a back room photo shop FRAUD))

                    The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

                    The IPCC is supported by many hundreds of scientists, 100’s of think tanks and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science.
                    The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations.
                    These authors and reviewers
                    1.
                    were all UNPAID volunteers, and
                    2.
                    are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

                    Unlike the IPCC,
                    the NIPCC examines literature published
                    1.
                    exclusively by climate contrarians (DENIERS)
                    2.
                    who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute.

                    The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors.

                    Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors.

                    The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

                • eric m

                  yes correct. the climate changes . the temp of the globe fluctuates. who would dare argue with that ? it’s the human caused stuff that doesn’t hold up .sure humans can effect the temp; but not anything worth mentioning . minuscule at best.

          • Robert Dekko

            You’re hopelessly biased you ignorant shill.

            • Immortal600

              The irony of your statement is probably lost on your feeble mind. LOL

              • Robert Dekko

                Since nobody pays me to disseminate false information there’s no irony. On the other hand, David works for the Heartland Institute; definitely a shill.

                The irony of someone celebrating secessionist officers and still pretending to be something of a patriot is lost on you, apparently.

                • Immortal600

                  Your attempt to lecture me on my moniker will only lead to more embarrassment for you. Stop while you’re ahead.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    Oh yeah? You’re a traitor to the US..

                    • Immortal600

                      Dig deeper because you obviously have NO clue about history as well as climate dynamics!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      The Immortal 600 were, as I understand it, 600 Confederate officers who were imprisoned by the Union and intentionally starved because they refused to take a forcible oath of allegiance to the U.S.

                      Are there any other Immortal 600?

                    • Immortal600

                      As I said, you have no clue. Your google search only gave you part of the story. You want to make assertions on so little evidence and that shows what you do with AGW. You just can’t see that. Dekko, you are one sad case.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      You’re celebrating people who refused to enter back into the Union and fought for states rights to own human beings… which is treasonous and disgusting.

                    • Immortal600

                      You have no clue about American history just as you have no clue on AGW. You are a Fraud. Sleep with that. LMAO

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Why don’t you inform the audience then and stop dancing around with all the emotional ad hominem?

                      I’m thinking it’s because there’s nothing else to say about it, other than the fact about 46 of the officers died from the starvation attempt… definitely a black mark on the Union’s side, disgraceful way to treat POWs.

                    • Immortal600

                      Emotional ad hominem???

                      You are delusional and there is no need to interact with a KOOK and FRAUD like you. Yes, caps for emphasis because you are so dense. Sleep well, KOOK.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Emotional ad hominem???
                      a KOOK and FRAUD like you.

                      Looool.

                      No anwser about the “true history” of the immortal 600? Coward. Typical too, demand all kinds of evidence and when it’s given double down on character attacks and scurry off without giving evidence of your own.

                    • Immortal600

                      hehehehehehe KOOK

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Coward… go ahead and scamper off while you fail to support your b.s. about your moniker…

                    • Immortal600

                      FRAUD hahahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      You’re still not providing anything factual about the immortal 600 and I proved my points about CO2 in my own words and with documented experiments, so I’ll just brush your crap off like a boss 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      I am not providing you with anything about the Immortal 600 because you aren’t really interested in them. You are a fraud and blowhard. You are no scientist. You gave yourself away with your claim that CO2 “traps” energy. No self-respecting scientist would make such a bogus claim. Like I said, you are a fraud masquerading as someone of authority. You are a poor joke.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      I am not providing you with anything about the Immortal 600 because you aren’t really interested in them.

                      The problem really isn’t that I’m “not interested” in them, considering I already knew what the name was referring to, the problem I pointed out was the irony that conservatives always pretend to be patriots while they glorify people who fought against the U.S. in order to keep human beings as slaves; you’re not patriots for celebrating those rebels. Why not celebrate the 13,000 that died in Camp Sumter? I know why, ’cause you’re probably a racist.

                      … your claim that CO2 “traps” energy. No self-respecting scientist would make such a bogus claim.

                      The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect.”

                      CO2science.org “Greenhouse Effect”

                      But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.

                      NASA Climate Kids – How is Earth a greenhouse?

                      It is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation heat in the atmosphere.

                      Columbia.edu – The Carbon Cycle and Earth’s Climate

                    • Immortal600

                      All your references are in error. Nothing is “trapped”. You are just a dummy parroting what you read. You can’t think for yourself and it is obvious.

                      As far as what the civil war meant and it’s relation to “patriotism’, your statements show you as clueless on that as well as climate dynamics. Try picking up a book on the 600 and reading their story. Wlikipedia doesn’t cut it. The civil war was about more than slavery but ignorant people like you wouldn’t understand that.

                      As I have said before, you are a fraud and blowhard. You’ve been exposed, fool.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Loool “no self respecting scientist would say that” until I show you self respecting scientists saying it, then I’m “parroting”. Haha, you’re a gag.

                      The civil war was about more than slavery

                      Right, I’ve heard that self-righteous con before.. “states rights”.. to own people. Fawkin’ racist bastard with your white washed wrong side of history.

                    • Immortal600

                      You upset? hahahahahahaha You are a fraud and blowhard, fool.

                      hahahahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Lol, not hardly. As upset as I ever would be talking to a shitty racist fuck like you 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. You are becoming unhinged, fool, and I love it. Keep ranting blowhard. Show your ignorance to the world. Liberals like you make assumptions about people and things with so little information and think you’re right! What a hoot! You’ve been exposed, fool.

                      hahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Rriiight, you’re sooo convincing. What was all that about projecting? As you rant unhinged… good thing mother fkrs like you don’t have a say in the functionality of this world.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yes, we do, fool. PRESIDENT TRUMP

                      hahahahahahahahahahahaha

                      hahahahahahahahahahaha

                      hahahaahahahahahaahhaha

                      suck on it !

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Lol, “you” as in “you racists?” 😉

                      Not if Mueller has anything to say. Let’s see your dipshit in chief talk face to face so he can purger and indict himself.

                      Btw, that is some unhinged laughter you got going on.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are the one unhinged and angry. Anybody can see it in your words. I have exposed you, fool.

                      hahahahahahahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Uh hu, ok pal, if that’s what you think.

                      The nurses are calling, it’s time for your meds.

                    • Immortal600

                      OK, Robert. Your Mommy is calling you for lunch. LMAO

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Real witty.. you probably should copy my style, yours was pretty stale..

                    • Immortal600

                      Poor Robert. You just can’t take it, can you? You’ve been exposed Robert. You are no scientist. Fraud.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Ooo, back to that old trope. I’m just soo bothered by you, really ;D You’ve got me! Ahahaha

                    • Immortal600

                      Yes , you are bothered by me, Robert. That is why you MUST respond. I’m in your head little man. Rent free too ! hahahahahaha

                    • Robert Dekko

                      *yawn* isn’t that then the same for you?

                    • Immortal600

                      Nope, buh bye

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Lol, sooooo… I “have” to respond, but you, even though you respond.. don’t?

                      You’re fucking amazing at missing your own irony…

                    • Immortal600

                      I see the irony, fool. Just confirming I’m inside your pea-brain. That’s all. You are pathetic.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Nope, buh bye

                      I thought this was goodbye? Haha..

                      You should check my discription, “Disputatious”… I find it disingenuous not to respond to people as I have nothing to hide from… but, if you rreaaally want me to ignore you.. um, ok :}

                    • Robert

                      Morano, while working for Inhofe, issued a series of reports which kept adding names of people he claimed disagreed with the science.

                      Maybe one of them had a 600 in the title…..

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Haha, maybe.. lol…

                      Morano got 31,487 signatures, which, even if the supposed scientists’ listed credentials weren’t fabricated, 31,487 out of the nearly 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year is only about 0.3%… very unimpressive…

                    • Robert

                      Morano is/was a slightly larger presence than Art Robinson”s OISM….

                      “He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh …
                      . . .

                      Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe. He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration. In 2007, Morano produced a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work, according to Morano, questions whether global warming is caused by human activity.[3][5]

                      In April 2009, despite having no formal education in the field of climate science,[6] Morano founded and became executive editor of ClimateDepot…..”

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

                      You did get everything else right about OISM, though.

      • jmac

        Derp.

        • David Wojick

          Ah, the brilliant logic of alarmism. I don’t suppose that you could be more specific. Maybe even manage a sentence?

          • Immortal600

            jmac is another kook without a clue. I salute you for not getting down on their level. Me? I can’t help myself. I feel the need to insult these AGW fools because they are such shallow thinkers and would destroy western economies over a BS theory that has been shown wrong in multiple ways

            • David Wojick

              Sometimes it is better to help a fool look like a fool than to call him a fool.

              • Robert Dekko

                Sometimes it’s better to pay a fool to talk like a fool than to face the truth and change your ways.

                • Immortal600

                  You ought to shut up. You’ve already shown yourself to be a lightweight.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    I’ll do what I like, especially ignoring those that can’t do anything to back their false claims up while you resort to childish retorts.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are such a hypocite, you silly BASTARD

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Lol, hypocite.. remember how irate you got when I typoed “emperor” as “emporer”? Hypocrite 😀

                    • Immortal600

                      Yes, you are. LOL

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Remember how irate you got when I typoed “emperor” as “emporer”? Hypocrite 😀

                    • Immortal600

                      I wasn’t “irate”. Just the opposite! I thought it was hilarious that you might think I had no idea of the reference. I am not angry with you, Dekko. I am showing you to be the fraud you obviously are!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      you silly BASTARD
                      you KOOK. Linking Wikipedia?????
                      Can YOU do that????

                      Typing with all caps and adding lots of extra punctuation makes you look very irate… you’re only showing yourself to be hot headed, not me to be a fraud… frauds hide behind monikers and TYPE IN ALL CAPS while they do nothing to prove their points and hinge on emotional pleas for acceptance by attacking character rather than points; i.e. what you’re doing…

          • jmac

            I have not seen you post anything that deserves more.

            • David Wojick

              I see, Jmac. You are just venting your feelings, with nothing of substance to say. I guess you figure that your feelings are so important that the rest of us, who are working on reading and replying to comments, should be interested in them. Sounds egotistical indeed.

              • jmac

                You still just making up stuff. More derp.

                • David Wojick

                  More nothing from you. What stuff am I making up?

                  • jmac

                    Conspiracy nuts have it easy. They can say whatever they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”. “Evidence” is one of those Wingnut Kryptonite words, which is banned from all discussions within their ranks because it stinks up their conspiracy BS.

                    It’s hard to learn what science says when you are in the grips of conspiracy theory.

                    Robert posted a pretty good reference to what the science is saying above, with citations. You simply blew it off as biased.

                    You’re a nutter.

                    • David Wojick

                      Jmac: I see you have made the usual alarmist progression from saying nothing to name calling. My article includes a reference to Lewin’s book on IPCC bias, which has loads of references. I myself first documented it almost 20 years ago. Do a Google search on “Artful Bias”.

                      Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.

                    • Immortal600

                      Great response to jmac the kook.

                    • jmac

                      You keep making derpy assertions. See Robert’s post above for what the science is saying.

                    • Immortal600

                      So, you can’t offer an intelligent reply to Dr. Wojick? How am I not surprised. You are a KOOK.

                    • Robert

                      D. Wojick asked you to “Do a Google search on “Artful Bias”.”

                      Here: (from first page, came before heartland or cfact. But after johndaly

                      In an email exchange with InsideClimate News, Wojick said teachers experienced in doing lesson plans would help him write the curriculum, but that he would not consult scientists.

                      “I myself am an expert on the scientific debate, so I don’t see the need for additional talent at this point, as this is a small project.”

                      A sample of his published writings:

                      In a 2001 editorial in the Financial Post, Wojick accuses the IPCC of “global environmental governance.”
                      “IPCC is not about science, it is about politics, the politics of global governance … IPCC is run by activist scientists obsessed with the supposed threat of climate change.”

                      A 2002 report by Wojick, entitled UN IPCC’s Artful Bias, seeks to debunk the consensus that earth is warming.
                      “The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all.”

                      In a 2002 piece in the Guardian, Wojick argues that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

                      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120314/heartland-institute-climate-change-skepticism-science-education-experts-david-wojick-ipcc-kyoto-protocol

                      Last I heard of a curriculum was a go fund me page…
                      Interesting given the thousands of teachers who develop lessons daily, and often on their own time…..

                    • Robert

                      And the reply? Priceless:

                      “Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                    • jmac

                      SMH Reminds me of:

                      Sarah Huckabee Sanders Offer to Lie for Free During Government Shutdown

                      “Now more than ever it’s important that the stream of falsehoods and distortions from this White House continues to flow,” the press secretary said.

                    • Robert

                      Andy Borowitz should be reposted more often!.

                    • jmac

                      No doubt. 🙂

      • AnOilMan

        And on your sources? 🙂
        “incompetent, inattentive and, perhaps, indifferent to the truth”
        https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/climate-denier-tim-ball-trump-approved-not-credible-enough-stand-accountable-libel-0

        Choose your words carefully… The science behind global warming is not theory, its applied engineering, and we use it to you know… engineer. So tell me again how you think the bulk of the heat on the planet is disproved or wrong. The experts (of which there are thousands) would probably like to know how you think its wrong.

        • David Wojick

          I have no idea what you mean by the heat on the planet, but if you mean why do I reject the hypothesis of human caused global warming, here is a good place to start:
          http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

          • AnOilMan

            I don’t read stories by cranks, idiots, and cowards. I’m an engineer, and I’m afraid telling me that you don’t know what heat is just makes you laughingly stupid. 🙂

            Here’s the heat;
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            • David Wojick

              I too am an engineer (civil, which is applied physics). As such I am extremely skeptical of goofy claims to know what the global heat content of the ocean is to hundredths of a degree. These are silly statistics.

              But if you mean the heat content of the ocean, or the atmosphere, at a given time and estimated in a given way, then you need to be specific. Be an engineer.

              • AnOilMan

                Really? Civil Engineering was a drop out option for me. All the easy courses were civil. I also turned down honors math and honors chemistry.

                So you don’t know or have studied sampling theorems? Yet you claim sampling theorems don’t work? Based on your ignorant opinion? Cool. You don’t know what over sampling is?

                You don’t know that the data is tested and verified by all allied navies to the USA? And you don’t know that temperature sensors have been that accurate since the 1940’s? You don’t know any of that?

                Since, you’re sooo bright, you tell everyone here how you could verify the error margins on those measurements. Failure to do so constitutes an absolute admission by you, that you really are stupid and don’t know what you’re talking about. Hint, its more obvious, and easier than you think.

                I use that science in oil and gas myself. Even today all measurements I do are done with an error margin. I do have a patent on measuring GHGs, so what do I know… Over sampling… filtering… Oh that’s right… you say its not possible to do all that. No wait you say its an estimate!

                • Robert Dekko

                  As opposed to an Uncivil Engineer?

                  “BLIMEY, YER A FAWKING IDJET”

                • David Wojick

                  It is not a question of error margins. All we have is a crude convenience sample and statistical sampling theory says clearly that convenience samples are worthless.
                  See my http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/

                  • AnOilMan

                    So you freely admit that you are ignorant. Very well, I accept your defeat. Hint: YOU MISSED SOMETHING. Look it up and start learning about it.

                    Oh and I was talking about ocean heat. Do you understand that surface temperatures are not ocean heat content? Where did you get your Phd? I bet it was cheap.

                    Now since you do freely state that you are uneducated, and ignorant, I’ll toss you a bone. ALL NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THE USA DEPENDS ON THAT DATA’S ACCURACY. Got it? We test it by measuring it. That’s why we know exactly how accurate it is. We compare predicted stats to the real thing. There’s lots of ways to do it. You can remeasure after the fact, or if you’re smart, you’d delete data points and compare them to the predicted results.

                    You don’t about all that since you never learned about it, did it, or worked with it. That’s why you are still not understanding what you’re talking about. What is it that you are missing I wonder? Is it your lack of electronics knowledge? (Yes) Is it your lack of oceanography knowledge? (Yes) Is it you lack of applied engineering knowledge? (Yes) Is it your lack of statistics knowledge? (Yes) Is it your lack of sampling theorem knowledge? (Yes)

              • Robert Dekko

                I am extremely skeptical of goofy claims

                Really? Like your goofy claim that “CO2 does not re-emit the photons that it absorbs.” Does it just stay inside the atom? An infinitly exited state?

                • David Wojick

                  No, the energy is immediately lost as heat to the surrounding air via kinetic collision. If this did not happen there would be no greenhouse effect. Re-emission occurs perhaps once in a billion times. This is textbook stuff that you apparently do not know.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    energy is immediately lost as heat to the surrounding air via kinetic collision.

                    “Lost” from the CO2, but not lost from the system…

                    Re-emission occurs perhaps once in a billion times.

                    Your exact words were: “CO2 does not re-emit the photons that it absorbs. If it did there would be no GH effect. But conversely no heat is trapped. GHGs also remove all of the incoming solar heat.

                    The heat is “trapped” because the CO2 does not “remove” the heat, it passes it to the O2 and N2 by way of vibrational or collisional energy (or, occasionally, back to other CO2 from re-emission). The heat is added to the atmosphere because the CO2, H2O or CH4 are there to trap it, something the O2 and N2 have next to no ability to do. So, the GHGs are the vehicle for transmitting the heat into the atmosphere… “trapping” it, until it is released at the TOA. More CO2 means more LW radiation is trapped.

              • John G

                David, you are obviously no scientist. This is clear by your repeated confusion about how taking thousands of temperature measurements to get an average, repeatedly over time, then comparing those averages to identify changes over time, does not yield results measured in integers.

                I brought this to your attention a week ago, and you continue to use your same bad argument. I’m beginning to suspect truth and accuracy is not you goal. Perhaps spreading FUD is your real objective?

                That would make sense, given what I’ve learned about CFACT being little more than a propaganda machine for industry and enabled by a few rich free market fundamentalists like the Koch brothers.

                Check out this book tour lecture from the ‘Merchants of Doubt’ book and movie if you don’t know what I mean:
                https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

                Perhaps rather than using temperatures as your metric, since you keep tripping up on that, you should use feet per day. Are you aware that species that can move quickly are heading toward the poles 15 feet a day to stay in the same temperature zones: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44191665/ns/us_news-environment/t/wildlife-runs-warming-faster-rate-study-finds/

                And did you know that coral bleaching from unusually warm water killed 29% of the Great Barrior Reef in 2016, and that we’ve killed 50% of the world’s coral in the last 30 years, mostly from warming from greenhouse gases from fossil fuel emissions? Did you know Marine Biologists have concluded we are now on track to kill the rest of the world’s coral in the next 30 years based on our projected greenhouse gas emissions?

                Have you read about the Russian Troll factories:

                Inside the Russian Troll Factory: Zombies and a Breakneck Pace https://nyti.ms/2C6RZoE

                I wonder how different what Russian Troll writers are doing is from what you do. If you cared to share accurate information it seems that you would start with facts, and write very differently.

                http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

      • R. Kooi

        “counter arguments”, dear boy, ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & RESEARCH.
        Neither have they been put thru Peer Review, Publication in scientific journals, further critiques and replicated.

        THEY are, as you labelled them….simply “counter arguments”

        An ideological point of view,
        a religious Zealotry.
        ……looking for ‘arguments’ to support
        THAT RELIGIOUS,
        ANTI SCIENCE,
        FANATACISM.
        * * *
        Vaughan Pratt, Professor (Emeritus since 2000) at Stanford University (1981-present)
        Dec 22, 2017

        Which factor is swiftly changing the earths climate?

        Well, one often-mentioned factor is CO2.
        Over the past millennium this graph, most of which is obtained from Antarctic ice cores,
        shows CO2 holding steady at 280 ± 5 ppm up to 1800, when global population was about
        a billion people and sailing ships and the horse-and-buggy
        were the most advanced forms of transportation,
        consuming relatively little energy per capita compared with today.
        Since then Earths’ population has grown to seven billion people,
        each consuming an order of magnitude more energy than back then,
        almost entirely by burning carbon-based fuels and
        releasing the resulting CO2 into the atmosphere as by far the most convenient place to put it.

        In the late 1700s Swiss polymath and alpinist Horace de Saussure
        was puzzled by why mountains were much colder at the top,
        despite being closer to the Sun and having less atmosphere between them and the Sun.
        It was well known at the time that glass tended to trap heat from the Sun,
        so de Saussure speculated that the atmosphere was trapping heat the way glass does.
        To confirm the heat-trapping ability of glass de Saussure
        built a nested stack of boxes each with a glass window at top.

        He found that successively deeper boxes were hotter,
        with the innermost one hot enough to cook fruit.
        In 1826 Joseph Fourier published a book in which he calculated that
        without de Saussure’s heating mechanism as applied to the atmosphere
        there was not enough heat from the Sun to prevent the oceans from freezing over.
        In the 1850s Irish physicist John Tyndall invented this gadget.

        It allowed him to measure the heat absorbing properties of gases
        placed in the long tube at top center. He found that gases and vapors
        whose molecules had three or more atoms, such as water vapor and CO2,
        absorbed much more of the thermal radiation passing through the tube
        than did two-atom molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen.

        He concluded that the water vapor in the atmosphere was responsible
        for the heat trapping effect that de Saussure had guessed at and
        that Fourier had shown was necessary to keep the oceans from freezing over.

        In 1878 American astronomer Samuel Langley,
        who later founded the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
        invented the bolometer, an extremely sensitive infrared thermometer
        that could detect the warmth of “a cow quarter of a mile away”.

        In 1896 Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius
        used Langley’s bolometer to measure the heat from the Moon
        at various altitudes above the horizon in order to estimate
        the dependence of atmospheric heat trapping on amount of water vapor
        and CO2 along the line of sight to the Moon,
        a much longer path near the horizon than at 45 degrees.

        Subtracting the expected influence of water vapor gave him that of CO2.
        From these measurements he concluded empirically that
        each doubling of CO2 trapped about the same amount of heat,
        though without offering any explanation of why the dependency on concentration
        should be logarithmic as opposed to say the square root.

        (Today we can see from the HITRAN tables for CO2 absorption lines
        that each doubling of CO2 brings 60–80 more lines into play,
        each line blocking about the same small amount of atmospheric window to space.)

        ((tens of thousands of samplings of CO2 all around the world, test ISOTOPES &
        that CLEARLY Proves that the dramatic increase in CO2 comes from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
        That is a distinct test )))

        But why CO2 and not water vapor?
        Well, Arrhenius’s interest was in the much higher temperatures of
        a hundred million years ago that some geologists of the time were claiming.
        Knowing that water vapor could not change much due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation,
        he reasoned that the next candidate in line for significant heat trapping ability
        must be CO2 and that it must have been much higher back then. His fellow Swede,
        physicist Anders Ångström, disputed Arrhenius’s theory on the ground that
        the absorption bands would have saturated well before reaching that level,
        but what neither Swede knew back then was that
        CO2 had more than 30,000 absorption lines most at strengths insufficient
        to play any role until CO2 had reached far higher
        than the 6000 ppm of a hundred million years ago.
        None of this history is in dispute today in scientific circles,
        other than by a very few scientists who reject the idea that if
        CO2 continues along the trajectory in the first graph above,
        by 2100 considerable damage will have been done both to the
        biosphere and to coastal real estate valuations.
        ***
        https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      • marlene

        You’re being trolled by those who believe what has not been proven and do not believe what has been proven. That’s the nature of an alarmist. Their arguments are based on their emotions and the number of quotes they can use. They refuse to let facts, and deceptions presented as facts, get in their way. I’m suspicious at how nasty and fanatic they are and suspect they are part of the funding for this global warming scam.

        • David Wojick

          I know Marlene, but the only way to see their errors is to get them talking.

          • marlene

            I hear you. You’re a gracious and patient man who knows whereof he speaks. Personally, I wish they’d just shut up. Very few actually engage in constructive discourse. Most just, well, “activate.” Thank you for your reply.

        • Robert

          Would be interesting to see your list of “..what has been proven. “

      • 9.8m/ss

        Can we save time and skip these “counter arguments” please?

    • jmac

      Well done.

  • socalpa

    Well , they can have their last hurrah . The fact is that the last chance of an enforceable global climate deal was lost at Copenhagen in 2009 .
    .
    After that ,the hiatus in global average surface temps for well over a decade became widely known .Interrupted by an El Nino ,but rapidly reforming in the data .
    .
    The Arctic ice free summer globally headlined to occur by 2013/14/15/16/17 never happened . In fact ,the opposite is occurring . Arctic sea ice at last Sept. minima was 1.3 millon sq kms greater than 2012,qnd 600,00 sq kms greater than 2007 A result of changing ocean currents ,not CO2 ..
    .
    Northern Hemisphere winters did not become milder ,they have grown colder and harsher for decades .
    .
    NASA determined Antarctica was not contributing to sea level rise ,it was actually reducing it .
    .
    Ocean “acidification” did not cause a marine phytoplankton decline, elevated CO2 stimulated global plankton growth as shown in all 50 -80 year data sets .
    .
    Global tropical cyclone activity has shown no detectable impact from CO2 elevation per NOAA …
    .
    The IPCC is a dead man walking .

    • ROO2

      After that ,the hiatus in global average surface temps for well over a decade became widely known .Interrupted by an El Nino

      Derptastic on your part.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorWMLSPC6I

      Arctic sea ice at last Sept. minima was 1.3 millon sq kms greater than 2012,qnd 600,00 sq kms greater than 2007

      Let’s have a look at the trend?

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/10/monthly_ice_09_NH_v2.1.png

      Oh dear.

      NASA determined Antarctica was not contributing to sea level rise ,it was actually reducing it ./blockquote>

      The Zwally paper that established that Antarctica is melting at an accelerating rate, as all scientists expect in a warming world? LOL

      socalpa is a brain dead man shilling.

      • socalpa

        Panicky, Parrot ?
        .
        Yes , hiatus reforming in the data , upsetting Hansen and Schmidt .
        .
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2018.1
        .
        Arctic ice decline clearly ended as the AMOC positive phase ended 2005, increasing as AMOC trends negative . 2 more decades of growth ahead .

        .https://eos.org/research-spotlights/atlantic-sea-ice-could-grow-in-the-next-decade
        .
        The NASA icesat & glaciology study that showed Antarctic continental ice mass increasing with declining snow fall for decades ,and melt area limited to ~ 2% of coastal Antarctica .

        https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/figure-dmdt-map.png
        .
        Decades of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent .
        .
        The exact opposite of expectations

        • ROO2

          Yes , hiatus reforming in the data

          Derptastic again. You are on a roll tonight.

          http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975

          Arctic ice decline clearly ended

          Hurrah the Yeager paper, you personal Voldemort. Let’s just check the title of the paper you linked to, shall we?

          Predicted slowdown in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss

          Ice decline clearly ended -vs- ongoing ice loss

          You really should brush up on the ability to read with comprehension.

          Decades of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent .

          Currently the lowest extent in the satellite record. An with accelerating ice melt from the continent too. Bravo.

          • socalpa

            Yes indeed ,reforming in the data ! The SSTs in particular ,

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1998/to:2018.1
            .
            Increases for decades are not a “slowdown”, so EOS explained. .
            .
            The parrot just makes … noise .

            • ROO2

              Yes indeed ,reforming in the data ! The SSTs in particular ,

              Derptastic, again. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

              http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1998/to:2018.1/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1975/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1998/trend

              Increases for decades are not a “slowdown”

              The paper titled:

              Predicted slowdown in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss

              External radiative forcing contributes to the skill of retrospective decadal sea ice predictions

              So you also contend that climate models show skill and can be relied upon, in addition to highlighting that increased radiative forcing from greenhouses gases is melting the arctic ice.

              Rather a road to Damascus moment for you socky. Keep up the good work.

              • socalpa

                Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
                .
                Another example of hiatophobia ! Fear of the hiatus return .. the parrot denies the data !
                .
                “Contributed to the skill of retrospective decadal sea ice predictions” ?
                .
                Indeed , eliminating the external radiative forcing from the models produced the skill you ninny ,replaced with AMOC phase !

                • Grumnut1

                  Good to hear what may be a coherent sentence.
                  I tried playing it backwards.
                  I think it is a Beatles tune.

                • ROO2

                  Another example of hiatophobia ! Fear of the hiatus return .. the parrot denies the data !

                  Quick check of the data:

                  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2003/FigBox3.1-1.jpg

                  Can you point out when exactly the planet is alleged to have stopped accumulating energy and warming?

                  Indeed , eliminating the external radiative forcing from the models produced the skill you ninny ,replaced with AMOC phase !

                  Good Lord, person who cannot even read with comprehension the title of a paper claims to understand the contents of it. Hilarious.

                  • Grumnut1

                    Oh, the titles can be the difficult bits.

                  • classicalmusiclover

                    In fairness, it is not that socalpa can’t read the title of the paper with comprehension. It is that he is deathly afraid of uttering it aloud, because, deep down, he knows how flimsy his claims are.

                    It is quite amusing.

                  • socalpa

                    Looks like the decline began about 2004 , as the solar activity decline began to show itself in the upper ocean layers .As it already had been showing in the colder winters of the northern hemisphere for the past two decades .
                    .
                    Funny that you cling to a title,and ignore the contents ,Yeager explicitly stated the sea ice decline was predicted by the AMOC phase .
                    .
                    Here is some upper ocean data , parrot .. those joules convert to 100ths of a degree C per decade top 2,000ms , just another alarmist graft.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585812/figure/f2/

  • yoda

    Actually “global average temperature” is just a mathematical representation. It does not exist in reality! The average temperature of a tropical country like Singapore is 26.5°C, that of the U.S.A. is 11.5°C. If “global average temperature rises 2°C, what will be the average temperature of U.S.A.? 13.5°C? Even if you go to the extreme, say, 26.5°C, that’s an increase of 15ºC. Singaporeans don’t die on the streets because of 26.5°C average temperature! What is more silly, the Paris agreement says ” 2.0 degrees C above what are called pre-industrial levels”. Who knows what is global average temperature during the “pre-industrial” era?? There was no satellite temperature measurement!
    One more thing, because the “Agreement” is non-binding, everybody signed up. Why not, if I’m a 3rd world country, the Agreement says the rich countries will compensate me of disasters like floods, earth quakes, tornadoes, etc.
    So the Paris Agreement can boast 190 countries signed up!!!

  • 1,5 C. target is as silly as light bulb full of dangerous substances, but both aim to create new cash flows to enrich the “green” elite, read: the communists.

    “Green” taxes and Cap’n Trade only achieve to redistribute money from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries.

    As always when it comes to the nazi left, lowest anomaly is the highest standard allowed. The poor in poor countries will continue to be poor and die like flies after short and brutal lives full of diseases and hardship.

    Of course, none of this will do anything about the climate, that has always been controlled by the sun, – and the sun just don’t care!!

    Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistribution
    http://www.newscats.org/?p=13587

    • Robert

      “…nazi left, …”

      “…climate, that has always been controlled by the sun…”

      Of course there are natural forcing and feedbacks. What the science shows, and indeed has for over a century, is that anthropogenic forcing* is overpowering the natural forcings.

      *Our burning of fossil fuels

      That you can’t support your claims with any substantive body of resesrch, no meata-analysis, and that you jump onto a claim of politics is evidence.

      • Immortal600

        “What the science shows, and indeed has for over a century, is that
        anthropogenic forcing* is overpowering the natural forcings.”

        Too bad you can’t show any proof of that statement. “likely” doesn’t cut it. You believe what the AGW proponents tell you. Do you have any critical reasoning skills? Can you think for yourself?

        • ROO2

          Too bad you can show any proof of that statement.

          There’s a wealth of published science on this point. Here’s a few papers for starters:

          https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2010/Fig10-06.jpg

          There are many more. Natural forcings cannot account for the change in planetary temperature. Sorry.

          • Immortal600

            Sorry but those papers don’t prove a thing other that you are sucker for believing them. You don’t even know what the “natural forcings” are. A clue for you, nobody else does either. Show me an experiment that can show these “forcings” as real. The IPCC is a joke.

            • ROO2

              You don’t even know what the “natural forcings” are. A clue for you, nobody else does either.

              So your position is there might be something causing the planet to warm but nobody knows what it is?

              ROTFLMAO

              • Immortal600

                They don’t and you can’t show otherwise.hahahahahaha

                • ROO2

                  That is perhaps the weakest and most moronic argument I’ve heard in a while. Thanks.

                  At least you acknowledge that the warming observed is not caused by the Sun, or natural ocean cycles.

                  • Immortal600

                    You can’t show why it is warming up. Show me an experiment that verifies “forcings”. Can you do that? You are another without critical thinking skills.

                    • ROO2

                      You can’t show why it is warming up.

                      I already did. Look up the attribution papers used in the creation of the graph I posted.

                      Show me an experiment that verifies “forcings”. Can you do that?

                      Given they are routinely measured that is a a most simple request:

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

                    • Immortal600

                      You are delusional. They don’t prove “forcings”.

                    • ROO2

                      The empirical measurement of radiative forcings from greenhouse gases does not prove forcings?

                      I getting the impression you don’t have the first clue about science. LOL

                    • Immortal600

                      NO they don’t and your links don’t prove it either. They assert something they can’t show is real. Think about it. What they are attempting to sell you is runaway global warming due to a trace gas. Read the paper closely. They say this ” there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.” But it is real. SURE

                    • ROO2

                      It seems you are devoid of scientific reasoning and logic.

                      Given that Roald appears to be your buddy, that figures.

                      The papers show empirically measured forcings.

                      It also seems that you struggle with the concept of the greenhouse effect. I’m guessing that is another thing that you would be incapable of offering a scientific objection to.

                      As Richard Lindzen said, people who claim that CO2 in not a greenhouse are “nutty”.

                    • Immortal600

                      The earth is not a greenhouse and the IPCC itself says that human contribution to CO2 levels amount to 4% of the total from all emissions. Yet we are to believe that the 4% drives climate change. Sure.

                    • ROO2

                      All of the atmospheric increase in CO2 arises from mankind.

                      We emit around 10GtC per year, the atmospheric concentration goes up by around 5GtC per year. I trust you can handle simple arithmetic.

                      The earth is not a greenhouse

                      Indeed, but it has a greenhouse effect. It would be damn cold in the absence of the greenhouse effect.

                    • It is shallow, incorrect nonsense like that that make me ignore you.

                      The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1: The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets
                      https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/

                    • ROO2

                      Hurrah! Another posting of Derp from Roald, and this time Postma too.

                      It seems both Roald and his pseudoscience blog do not understand the difference between the aenergy received from the Sun (cross sectional area of the globe, a circle) and the distribution of that energy across the globe, (a sphere with 4 times the surface area).

                      It seems both Roald and Postma think they live on a flat Earth. How quaint.

                    • Immortal600

                      Assertions without substance. You can’t show that the CO2 increase is just from mankind either.CO2 increase have FOLLOWED temperature rises. Ice cores show that.

                      Here is an atmospheric physicist’s take on CO2 and how it does not change climate:

                      http://edberry.com/blog/category/climate-physics/

                      Show us how he is wrong, if you can.

                    • ROO2

                      You can’t show that the CO2 increase is just from mankind either.

                      Ah, as expected it was you inability to handle basic arithmetic that let your down.

                      There are other lines of evidence that show, without a doubt that the sole increase of atmospheric CO2 results from the combustion of old dead stuff.

                      I doubt you would be able to follow the science though.

                    • Sam Gilman

                      So, do you know what isotopes are?

                    • Immortal600

                      Do you?

                    • Sam Gilman

                      Yes , I do, but it’s clear that you don’t, otherwise you would have calmly answered. It’s not a difficult question. Isotope ratios of carbon are one very strong line of evidence to show that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

                      This is the problem: you understand so little about science that you’re simply in no position to have such strong opinions. Unfortunately, the Dunner Kruger effect predicts that such lack of understanding can contribute to someone like you being ridiculously overconfident. The competence to judge your understanding, it turns out, is the same skill set as the understanding itself.

                      Hope this helps.

                    • Immortal600

                      No it doesn’t help. I baited you into showing your condescension. Speaking of Dunning Kruger, you must be the poster child. Here is a link for you. Go argue with him. BTW, he addresses the C-14 problem you were coyly trying to allude to.

                      http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/#comment-44674

                    • socalpa

                      Derp !
                      .
                      “All of the atmospheric increase in CO2 arises from mankind ”
                      .

                      Utter nonsense ,the human share of atmospheric CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been falling since 2000 . The natural sources and sinks increasing terrestrial and marine .

                      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1

                    • Robert

                      “Global temperatures plunge in April – “the pause” returns | Watts Up With That?
                      Watts Up With That? › comment-page-1
                      May 1, 2017 · Figure 1: Changes in the airborne fraction and the CO2 growth rate. https://www. nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1 – If already covered , on WUWT ,send a link ,please ..you …”

                      Article that wuwt pulled the jpg from:
                      Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake
                      Trevor F Keenan, I. Colin Prentice, Josep G Canadell, Christopher A Williams, Han Wang, Michael Raupach & G. James Collatz
                      Nature Communications volume 7, Article number: 13428 (2016)
                      doi:10.1038/ncomms13428
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428#f1

                    • socalpa

                      You did notice the graph in my link contains the link to the Nature study ?
                      .
                      So what was your point ? Watts covered it too ? So did Phys .org ,and many others .
                      .
                      Are you disputing the conclusions ?

                    • Robert

                      Another point is that your fig 1 graph is followed by….
                      Fig 2

                      Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake
                      Trevor F Keenan, I. Colin Prentice, Josep G Canadell, Christopher A Williams, Han Wang, Michael Raupach & G. James Collatz
                      Nature Communications volume 7, Article number: 13428 (2016)
                      doi:10.1038/ncomms13428
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428#f1

                      And notice the title.
                      As normal, your wuwt derived source tries to make a claim that doesn’t fit to what you are trying to support.

                      We are adding co2 to the atmosphere. There is nothing your source saying anything different.
                      Read the title.

                    • socalpa

                      Another “point” to what ,exactly ?
                      .
                      Fig 2 ?
                      ..
                      Fig 2 shows the decline in the anthro share of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere despite increasing emissions during the period after 2000 . That means an increase in natural CO2 remaining in the atmosphere if the anthro fraction is reducing .
                      .
                      Read the conclusions and the data..
                      .
                      My “source” was the Nature study
                      .
                      And ROO made the false claim that all CO2 increases are human caused . utterly false . .

                    • Robert

                      Figure 2: Long-term changes in terrestrial carbon cycling.

                    • socalpa

                      My mistake
                      .
                      What about Fig 2 ?

                    • Robert

                      What about the title.
                      What about explaining how you thought this paper supported your claim?

                    • socalpa

                      What about the title ?
                      .
                      R002 claims all added CO2 is anthro . This is false .
                      .
                      This paper I linked shows the anthro share of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere declined after 2000.
                      .
                      If CO2 increased , what fraction is the one that increased ?
                      .
                      You do know there are only two sources of atms CO2 that make up total atms CO2 ? You do know if a fraction of a total decreases ,the other fraction must increase ?
                      .
                      Over your head ?

                    • Robert

                      Sorry for your comprehension problem.
                      What part of the paper, quote exactly and page number, states a source of non-anthropogenic source increasing the amount of co2 in our system?

                    • socalpa

                      Sorry for your lack of arithmetic comprehension .
                      .
                      See your Fig 2 in the link ..
                      .
                      Now ,what are the two components of atms CO2 ? .

                    • Robert
                    • socalpa

                      Indeed ,you ran away !
                      .
                      No need to confirm .. obvious to any readers .

                    • Robert

                      “utterly false . .”

                      The Nature study does not support your claim.

                      You need a source that actually states in its conclusion ‘we find that x % of co2 increase is from y source.

                      What does the Nature conclusion say?

                    • socalpa

                      The Nature study concludes that the anthro fraction of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere began declining after 2000 .
                      .
                      There are only two sources that make up total atmospheric CO2 ..what are they ?

                    • Robert

                      Quote what you think tells you that ROO2”s point is in error.

                      Funny how you’re trying to engage in two separate topics.
                      And the common thread is that you can’t quote supporting sources…..

                    • socalpa

                      I did quote ,and link to my supporting sources . Now ,you are blatantly lying . I assume to cover your embarrassment . .
                      .
                      Now, try real hard ;
                      .
                      There are only two sources that make up total atmospheric CO2 ..what are they ?

                    • Robert

                      Thanks for the continuing demonstration. Esp since you just refuted yourself re attempting to refute ROO2.

                    • socalpa

                      How so ?
                      .
                      Use your words .

                    • Robert
                    • socalpa

                      You stupid git .
                      .
                      They show ESTIMATES of relative forcings .

              • Robert Dekko

                “Nobody knows” translates to “I don’t know” ;P

                • Immortal600

                  That’s right, I don’t know and neither do you or anyone you can cite.

                  • Robert Dekko

                    I don’t know…

                    Meh, you probably do but are just being willfully ignorant…
                    …neither do you…

                    Sure I do, I work on this kind of stuff daily, i.e. Volcanoes are a prime example of a natural forcing.

                    …or anyone you can cite.

                    Yeah they do.
                    UC Davis- Present: Climate Forcing Factors

                    http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plantsciences_faculty/bloom/camel/Art/EBalance.jpg
                    External Forcings
                    Galactic Variations
                    Orbital Variations
                    Sunspots

                    Internal Forcings
                    Orogeny & Epeirogeny
                    Volcanism
                    Albedo
                    ->Atmospheric Composition<-
                    Ocean Circulation
                    Teleconnection

                    OSSFoundation: Radiative Climate Forcing
                    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/efficacy_fig28.gif

                    • Immortal600

                      None of that is proven. You may think it is but it isn’t. No one can say for sure what extra CO2 is doing to climate dynamics. To take it one step further, not you or anyone you can cite has a full understanding of climate dynamics. That is a fact you seem to not be able to grasp.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Why, because you declare it? I understand it regardless of whether you want to tantrum and pretend I don’t. It’s well documented no matter how you hand wave, the world will just move on despite your twitish ignorance, whether you accept it or not. You don’t have to accept the truth for it to remain the truth.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. You like the other AGW believers have yourself deluded into thinking you have a grasp on climate dynamics when you clearly don’t. Go argue with this guy. He might set you straight:

                      http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/#comment-44674

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Not likely, Ed Berry hasn’t published anything relevant in 37 years, I hardly would consider him anything of an expert with that gap in knowledge. Plus, looking at his site, he suffers from the same delusion as you, thinking that simply declaring something and burrying his head makes him right. More handwaving.

                    • Immortal600

                      That’s right, when you can’t argue his theory , tear down the messenger. You are the one doing the “hand-waving”.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Right, but all the worlds National Academy of Sciences are “corrupt” and “bias” and don’t know what they’re talking about? Sounds like you’re the deluded one shooting the messenger when you can’t disprove them, with your “nobody knows” crock

                    • Immortal600

                      More hand waving from you. None of the world’s academies are experts. They are wrong just as you are in your belief you have climate dynamics figured out. Now, THAT is a joke.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      That’s right, when you can’t argue his theory , tear down the messenger
                      None of the world’s academies are experts.

                      F**king hypocrites, the lot of you.

                    • Immortal600

                      The two statements are not contradictory but I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. LOL

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Uh hu, and the emporer’s new clothes look great to you as well, fool.

                    • Immortal600

                      The only fool is YOU thinking human CO2 is driving climate change. Can you really think any deeper than that?

                      “Emporer”? LOL

                    • Robert Dekko

                      The real question is, what are you going to do to disprove it? Link to a man who can’t disprove it either? You’re just pissing in circles and calling it logic.

                      “Emporer”?

                      Apparently you don’t understand the reference. Edwin X Berry is the emporer in this case, thinking he’s fully clothed when his ignorance is on full display, along with yours.

                    • Immortal600

                      I understand the reference, fool. I was making fun of your misspelling of EMPEROR. You really are dense. Dr. Berry disproves AGW and that is all I need to say. Run along blowhard.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Lol, a typo, but at least I understand statistics, unlike Ed and you.

                      You know, maps don’t have 100% accuracy either, but they still tell us what’s going on. Same principle with climate models.

                    • jmac

                      #facepalm

                    • Immortal600

                      That is the limit of your intellect.

                    • jmac

                      Derp from an idiot.

                    • Immortal600

                      Back atcha, chump.

          • Why do you post FAKE graps?

            1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/1875-coldest-year-in-10000-years-and-no-warming-for-58-years/

            Briffa and Melvin Crowns 1936 as Warmest Year Ever!
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/briffa-and-melvin-crowns-1936-as-warmest-year-ever/

            1936 was the warmest year ever measured, number 2 was 1998 ..
            There’s no global warming and even less (Man Made) Global Warming!

            • Robert

              Coherency ….
              Gone missing…
              “There’s no global warming and even less (Man Made) Global Warming!”

        • Robert

          “Too bad you can show any proof of that statement.”

          Perhaps a Freudian slip…..

          But, please, if you have anything, post it.

          Until then:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3749050671

          • Immortal600

            You have nothing. I get that. You don’t need to keep showing it over and over.

            • Robert

              Someday we’ll see your substantive body of research and analysis, right?

              • Immortal600

                Keep watching and reading Robert. Open your mind to the possibility that you are being sold a bill of goods.

                • Robert

                  You’d think that sometime in the past nearly two hundred years, someone would have brought forward that “possibility”….

            • Robert

              Ah, you seem to think some insulting is the equivalent to nearly two centuries of global research.

              • socalpa

                “nearly two centuries of global research” ?
                .
                3 or 4 researchers in the 19th century extrapolating from gas in a flask on a lab bench to a chaotic ,coupled planetary ocean atmosphere climate system ?
                .
                You really are desperate !

                • Robert

                  Yeah, if they were going to create a conspiracy, they really should have started out with a nationally funded, hundreds of scientists exploration …….

                  • socalpa

                    That occurred after 1990. Their speculations used in a conspiracy to extract Trillions from developed countries .
                    .
                    Before that ,the “fear” was global cooling . also used by leftists to attack Western Industrial society .
                    .
                    Now multi decade ocean current contributions are known to increase or decrease GAST , Arctic ice extent etc..
                    .
                    Also clear the contribution of solar underestimated ,as Hansen and Schmidt opined recently .
                    .
                    The wheels are falling off the CO2 drives climate bus ,Robert .
                    .
                    Try to accept it . . .

                    • Robert

                      “…opined recently”

                      Quote and cite?
                      Nope…
                      Thanks.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      When will you demand the recall of atmospheric physics textbooks and the firing of college professors for teaching that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas?

                    • ROO2

                      He might have already started. socalpa appears quite the book burner.

                    • Robert

                      Oh, we don’t need to go that far. what we don’t have is any evidence S. knows where the Sciences shelves are at the local public library or CC, or uni.

                    • Robert

                      I wonder what you read that is so convincing to you to actually embolden you to publicly state that there is a global conspiracy foisting itself on virtually every local, county, state, national governement……

                      Not only that, but I seems your unnamed sources are prevailing in its exposure of that conspiracy…..

                      Tell us, are the bipedal lizards wearing mind control collars?

                    • ROO2

                      The Gummit are coming to take his money through taxes, if he does not change his ways, and give it to poor people. The horror!

                    • socalpa

                      Do you doubt that national governments , and some international (EU and UN) are not seeking revenue from carbon taxes ?
                      .
                      This is public knowledge ..
                      .
                      I suggest you take your collar ,and your blinders off ,Liz .

                    • Robert

                      “Liz”

                      Interesting non-linked-to supportive evidence from your readings

                    • socalpa

                      Just answer the obvious ,or are you claiming carbon taxes are not being charged in the EU and sought in the U.S ?
                      .
                      Carbon taxing was repealed in Australia .
                      .
                      ~ 8% of UK total government revenue is now carbon taxing .
                      .
                      Make your point .

                    • Robert

                      A point is that you make many unsupported claims.

                      And often, when you do cite a source, it seems to be incomplete, inaccurately summerized, fakequoted, often sources back to a secondary or even tertiary resource .

                      None of those behaviors are intellectually honest.

                      “Liz”

                    • socalpa

                      Are you trying to say that there is no support for governments national and international are not imposing or seeking to impose carbon taxes ?
                      .
                      Or just whining ?

                    • Robert

                      Odd that if you’re so sure your talking points are valid, that you’d be so remission in supporting them.

                      Ex:
                      “8% of UK total government revenue is now carbon taxing “

                    • socalpa

                      You seem reluctant to say whether or not you believe national and international governments imposed or are seeking to impose carbon taxes .
                      .
                      Why don’t you take a position before requiring I look up publicly available information ?
                      .
                      “So remission” ? What do you mean ?

                    • Robert

                      Welll, you made a claim. Several actually.
                      Support them.
                      My position is not the issue.

                    • socalpa

                      I will if you directly claim that you do not believe governments have imposed ,and are seeking to impose carbon taxes .
                      .
                      Only two choices .
                      .
                      a) if you agree carbon taxes are imposed and sought by governments , no need to support .
                      .
                      b) if you do not believe governments impose or plan carbon taxes ,I will provide the publicly available info .
                      .
                      So ,your position is the issue .

                    • socalpa

                      Well ?

                    • Robert

                      [At this moment a noise is heard, far off, but swiftly approaching, of a beast panting in its headlong course, and of a long trumpeting.]

                      BERENGER: I couldn’t refuse. It wouldn’t have been nice . . .

                      JEAN: Did I go there?

                      BERENGER: Well, perhaps it was because you weren’t invited.

                      WAITRESS: [coming out of café] Good morning, gentlemen. Can I get you something to drink?

                      [The noise becomes very loud.]

                      JEAN: [to BERENGER, almost shouting to make himself heard above the noise which he has not become conscious of] True, I was not invited. That honor was denied me. But in any case, I can assure you, that even if I had been invited, I would not have gone, because . . .

                      [The noise has become intense.]

                      What’s going on?

                      [The noise of a powerful, heavy animal, galloping at great speed is heard very close; the sound of panting.]

                      Whatever is it?

                      WAITRESS: Whatever is it?

                      RHINOCEROS
                      by Eugene Ionesco.

                    • socalpa

                      The only noise heard by all ..
                      .
                      Was the thunderous beat
                      .
                      Of Roberts feet ..
                      .
                      As he beat .
                      .
                      His hasty ..
                      .
                      Retreat !

                    • Robert
                    • socalpa

                      You want to emphasize you ran away from the discussion ?
                      .
                      Fine by me !

                    • Robert

                      Interesting perspective…..

                    • socalpa

                      Obvious is more like it .

                    • Robert

                      Missing an li there….

                    • socalpa

                      Missing the answers to my questions .
                      .
                      Step up ,spammer .

                    • Robert
                    • socalpa

                      We already know you can paste links ,
                      .
                      Now , about that arithmetic problem . and you position on national and international governments seeking and imposing carbon taxes .

                    • Robert

                      Yup, still waiting for you to finish w your part in both….

                      That’s the unknown thundering noise …..

                    • socalpa

                      I already explained what the “thundering noise” we hear is .
                      .
                      This last post of yours is the noise fading into the distance .

                    • Robert

                      “. So remission” ? What do you mean ?”

                      Odd that if you’re so sure your talking points are valid, that you’d be so reluctant in supporting them.

                    • socalpa

                      What in the world are you babbling about ? Are you talking about “remission” ,as in remission from cancer ?
                      .
                      If you don’t believe governments are imposing carbon taxes ,or seeking to ,just say so !
                      .
                      If you do believe they are ,the question is moot .
                      .
                      If you believe they are not ,then I will post the Publicly available data .
                      .
                      So ,choose ,or shut up .

                    • Robert

                      Still waiting…..

                    • socalpa

                      For what ?
                      .
                      A revelation that carbon taxes are not being imposed or sought by governments ?
                      .
                      You have a long wait ahead of you on that one ,Liz !

                    • Robert

                      ” ,Liz !”
                      Thanks for the demonstration of an inability to perform at the level of the average 6th grader.

                    • socalpa

                      Get lost Liz, you obviously have no argument .
                      .
                      Anyone can see you just seek to annoy .

                    • Robert

                      “Liz”

                    • Robert

                      Odd that if you’re so sure your talking points are valid, that you’d be so remiss in supporting them.

                    • socalpa

                      Oh , remiss .. that’s better..
                      .
                      Odder still is why you seem to think they are invalid points and need support .
                      .
                      Carbon taxes are widely known to have been imposed in EU and UK , Imposed and repealed in Australia .Sought in the U.S by your Citizens Climate Lobby you shill for ..
                      .
                      Do you disagree , or not ?

                    • Robert

                      You haven’t supported your claims. One in particular has been asked for multiple times.

                      You have a long, inglorious history of ignoring citing your support, cherry picking what you respond to, and ignoring resources and explanations after having been given, pointed to.

                      In short, a bad faith practicioner of discussion, or more formally, arguments.

                      So, until then,…..

                    • socalpa

                      Why don’t you support your claims about me then ?
                      .
                      My history is open , should be easy peazy .
                      .
                      Why the need to excuse your obvious tail between your legs departure ?
                      .
                      No one is fooled .

                    • Robert

                      Oh, more simple than that.
                      Just go up thread and look for my responses and look for the words support, evidence, link, claim, assertion, ……

                      Even simpler; in your posts, any statement you make that does not have at least one pair of quote marks and corrosion ding links.

                    • jmac

                      X2

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      “I wonder what you read”
                      It’s pretty obvious. CFACT and Watts Up. Before that, Atlas Shrugged, which created the cognitive dissonance which led the poor fool to seek out handwaving sites like CFACT and Watts Up. Nobody told the fool that Shrugged is a juvenile wish-fulfilment fantasy, not an economics or political science textbook.

                    • socalpa

                      Dish that dirt ,ladies !
                      .
                      Spew that bile …make Socalpa …
                      .
                      Smile and smile !.
                      Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      So, 9.8m/ss was correct in his assessment of your reading list.

                    • socalpa

                      9.8 ,like you , pretends to mind reading abilities and abillty to divine the future .
                      .
                      You are both ,Nostradumbasses .

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      A reading list can be inferred from the nature of comments made, positions taken, tribal allegiances implied or asserted over a long period of time. It doesn’t take mind-reading.

                    • socalpa

                      Sure ,stalker .
                      .
                      I inferred from both your posts , that you are Nostrumbasses .

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      It is true that the highest intellectual attainment you can claim is name-calling.

                      Anyone can see that from your comments, whether it be esteemed scientists or your fellow commenters.

                      But that makes you very much in your safe space with the other loons at CFACT.

                    • socalpa

                      “FO”… stalker .
                      .
                      Get back to MMs .

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Your true colors are puke green

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      So, you really do view climate research as evidence-free speculation all with the aim of wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor countries, organized and perpetrated by scientists.

                      You also fail to realize that “global cooling” was never the long-term prognosis of climate researchers, and that the short-term cooling effect from aerosols was addressed by taking action.

                    • socalpa

                      Typical stupid and dishonest post by my lil stalker .
                      .
                      Typical ocean cycle denier too .
                      .
                      How long do negative AMO cycles last ?
                      .
                      When was the last one before the 2005 flip ?

            • ROO2

              New scats?

              Have you had a follow through again?

            • Robert

              Oh, ….
              A six year old blog post…..

              Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t …
              WordPress.com › johnosullivan › breaki…
              Dec 20, 2012 · Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist. This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s …

            • Robert

              Funny how you don’t link to the source of your graph…..
              Or the original source rather than the newscat repost….

              • Roald J. Larsen

                So, “Hansen et al., 1981” (written with big black letters in the graph) doesn’t mean anything to you?

                See, discussing with the low IQ nazi left is basically pointless.

                • Robert

                  Oh, title perhaps?
                  Publication?
                  Page number?
                  Date?

                  Basic information the average 6th grader is capable of providing.

                  “..low IQ nazi left..”

                  • classicalmusiclover

                    He does seem to think that the Nazis were leftists, doesn’t he?

                    • Robert

                      Almost alliteration. About as thorough as not reading history …..

                  • 9.8m/ss

                    Perhaps he’s talking about 10.1126/science.213.4511.957, but far more likely he’s talking about a comment about it on a Prager video or a Watts Up article.

                    • Robert

                      I’m sure we’ll get a proper response from RJL….
                      Esp., the page number……

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Yuck, Prager, what a bunch of fascist crap.

              • RealOldOne2

                “Funny how you don’t link to the source of your graph….”
                Here’s a similar graph: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402 Source: 1975 National Academy of Sciences report: ‘Understanding Climatic Change’

                Natural climate warming for several decades and cooling for a couple decades and by ~1970 the temperature was right back to where is was in 1880. Gee, ~95% of all the human CO2 ever emitted up to that time between 1880 and 1969 and it didn’t increase that temperature at all. Yet more empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

                • Robert

                  “1975”

                  Also see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling for context.

                  So we have Roald claiming “…Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist ” using an unsourced graph,
                  And RealOld claiming that a graph used to prove ‘cooling in the 70s’ supports Roald.

                  Both cherry picking research from 50 years ago. One crackpot theory, one confused between aerosols and GHGs.

                  Both using arguments found on a handful of denialist blogs.

                  • RealOldOne2

                    “Both cherry picking research from 50 years ago.”
                    Your typical dishonest, evidence-free claim of “cherry picking”. Sad.

                    Using a contemporary source, prior to any dishonest revisionism is not cherry picking, except to dishonest, duped doomsday cult zealots.

                    “one confused between aerosols and GHGs.”
                    More dishonest handwaving by Robert. There’s no confusion except in your duped mind which accepts the propaganda from your climate cult. Just real world empirical data showing cooling from the late 1930s which erased the warming from 1880. You have no global aerosol data showing it was the cause of the cooling. You are just repeating your climate cult’s propaganda that it uses to deny empirical data and reality. So pathetic.

                    • Robert

                      “…dishonest revisionism …”

                      You ‘know’ that how?

                      Best sources.

                      “…climate cult’s propaganda that it uses to deny empirical data and reality.”

      • ROO2

        Damn those nazi lefties murdering the trade unionists, their own kind, during the night of the long knives!?!!!?!

        Strangely Roald’s facebook page is a homage to racial and religious hatred, much like the nazis he talks of and shares such similar traits.

        • Immortal600

          Yes, when you can’t argue his science, castigate the messenger. Dummies like you are a dime a dozen.

          • ROO2

            when you can’t argue his science

            LOL. Roald?

            Who posts links to sites claiming that nuclear fusion does not exist?

            Was there ever an argument to be had? The man is completely bonkers nuts, has race hate issues, and zero scientific education.

            • Immortal600

              Sure. What ever YOU say. You are someone masquerading around with someone else’s moniker (albeit altered). You are nothing more than a kook and blowhard.

              • ROO2

                Sure. What ever YOU say.

                Unlike scaredy you, Roald has an open posting history, you can look for yourself. You can ask Roald yourself he will be fine about it as he does not understand what it is he posts.

                The website belongs to a mushroom specialist:

                http://nov79.com/about3.html

                The pinnacle of non-scientific arguments against established science.

                • Immortal600

                  Roald knows more about it than you do and it is OBVIOUS. Run along little boy

                  • ROO2

                    I’ve known Roald for some time and it is blatantly obvious that he has zero scientific education.

                    Do you also believe that nuclear fusion does not exist, like your friend Roald?

                    • Immortal600

                      Why are you masquerading around with someone else’s moniker? He must have roasted you in the past. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      The person that claims light cannot travel in opposing directions?
                      That he has a device that can detect beyond the edge of the observable universe?

                      Are these scientific concepts that you buy into as well?

                    • Immortal600

                      Why are you using someone else’s moniker? Did he embarrass you at some point in the past?

                    • ROO2

                      A person who claims light can only travel in one direction would have a hard time to embarrass anybody, don’t you think?

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t know about that. You obviously got hurt enough to use someone else’s moniker. You must be a weak minded individual. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      I don’t know about that.

                      You could make an educated guess as to whether such a claim was false or otherwise, I presume?

                    • Immortal600

                      I am not referring to the claim, oh shallow one. I’m talking about your frailty in using someone else’s moniker. I knew I’d have to spell it out for you.

                    • ROO2

                      Ah, your continued evasion owing to your uncomfortable position is noted.

                      I no of no other discus user with a beer swilling kangaroo as their avatar or than the ROO2.

                      I’d be happy for your to point out any others though.

                    • I always embarrass him, but his IQ is under 95 so he doesn’t get it ..

                    • RealOldOne2

                      I have roasted, toasted and totally exposed my serial impersonator as being scientifically illiterate, as he denies such fundamental science as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
                      He is so butt hurt that he began serially impersonating me. His long sordid history of impersonation is documented here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867

                      What makes him madder than a wet hornet is that try as he might, he’s never been able to show a single science error in any of my comments, so he lies and fabricates and makes up non-errors that I never stated. Meanwhile, I’ve posted screen captures of his ignorance of science. He’s a total liar and a joke.

                    • Immortal600

                      I knew that. He of course tries to deny it. But we know better. He is what you say, a joke. Just as all these other fools coming here to spout their nonsense.

                    • BS! You don’t know me – at all – as you just documented by posting your shallow stupidities. That seem to be the constant with you and the reason i for the most part just ignore you.

                      What i have posted, for n-te time, is this:
                      Chapter 3: Global Warming Contrived Through Fake Science
                      http://nov79.com/book/chapter3.html#scle

                      I do not care about his political views, shoe size or hair color etc. why do you??

                      Let’s say it together, because you are stupid and are powerless when it comes to science, you don’t even try to refute his science (which, by the way, is supported by empirical, real world data).

                    • ROO2

                      Thank you Roald.

                      You again cite as a scientific reference the website of the mushroom man. The same site which states:

                      http://nov79.com/book/

                      Nuclear fusion does not exist
                      Quantum mechanics is a fantasy
                      Relativity is wrong, etc

                      It’s quite the treasure trove of Derp.

                    • Immortal600

                      The use of the word “derp” is a favorite among you liberal kooks. hahahahaha

                    • ROO2

                      Ah so you also agree that:

                      Nuclear fusion does not exist
                      Quantum mechanics is a fantasy
                      Relativity is wrong, etc

                      I see you and Roald have something in common at least.

                    • Immortal600

                      Seeing things? Figures. It is what you liberals do best!

                    • ROO2

                      Ahh, you are suggesting that Roald’s science citation is utter garbage then.

                      Blue on blue.

                    • Immortal600

                      I haven’t said anything because I haven’t seen what you, the blowhard, claim. I, unlike you, need evidence to support a claim. Dummies like you accept the flimsiest of evidence. Can you even think for yourself? I wonder.

                    • ROO2

                      Are you hard of understanding?

                      It’s rather clear that Roald’s “science” website claims the following:

                      Nuclear fusion does not exist
                      Quantum mechanics is a fantasy
                      Relativity is wrong, etc

                      What is your scientific viewpoint on the accuracy or otherwise of the claims made on Roald’s favourite citation?

                    • He, like all low IQ nazi leftists, try to smear my sources in order for me to stop using it. Of course because they are unable to refute the science.

                      Example:

                      Chapter 3: Global Warming Contrived Through Fake Science
                      http://nov79.com/book/chapter3.html#scle

                      He is focusing on fusion, which has nothing to do with climate science. But let’s check how real fusion enrgy is ..

                      After years of research ..

                      LIMITLESS energy on Earth: MIT’s fusion reactor sets a new world record for plasma pressure

                      “An almost limitless supply of clean energy has been brought one step closer to reality after a team in the US set a new record for nuclear fusion.
                      By smashing the previous record for plasma pressure – one of the core components of the fusion process – engineers and scientists have nudged the process further along the road towards a viable source of energy production.
                      While using nuclear fusion to power homes and businesses may still be some way off, the work proves that the burning of star-like fuel can be achieved and contained using the current approach. Nuclear fusion is being looked to as a potentially limitless source of clean energy, created by the same core processes inside the sun.
                      Using intense heat, magnetic fields and pressure, the nuclei of lighter elements are fused together to create heavier elements, releasing energy in the process.
                      By containing this star-like process in specially designed reactors, engineers can fuse hydrogen atoms together to produce helium, harnessing the clean energy produced and potentially cutting dependency on fossil fuels.
                      In order for the reaction to take place, the super-heated gas – in a plasma state – is subjected to pressure, which essentially squeezes the atoms together and forced them to react. The work, carried out at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the pressures involved up to two atmospheres – breaking the previous record by 15 per cent.
                      They achieved the pressures using MIT’s custom Alcator-C Mod Tokamak reactor, which uses intense magnetic fields to contain the reaction within a fixed volume.
                      With the pressure maintained at 2.05 atmospheres of pressure – equivalent to 10 metres below the surface of the ocean – the temperature inside the reactor reached more than 35 million degrees Celsius (63 million degrees Fahrenheit), more than double the temperatures achieved in the sun’s core.”
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQb0amZHIlU

                      Looks like the mushroom guy got that right also for what ever reason :))

                    • ROO2

                      Fusion? That’s utter nonsense Roald, your prized scientific citation states as much.

                      Or are you about to perform the world’s largest cherrypick? LOL

                    • Robert

                      How about this for cherry picking?
                      Claims a 6 year old blog post citing a 1979 report is proof ghg effect doesn’t exist….
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3749110856

                      And a 1981 dated graphic….

                    • See what i mean, low IQ! :))

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      I know three people whose homes are powered by nuclear fusion. The reactor they use is 93 million miles from here. It’s been running for billions of years. They capture the energy using an effect discovered by Albert Einstein. Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics for that discovery. This is the real world, Roald, where discoveries in physics are announced in carefully refereed journals, not personal blogs full of silly mistakes. Albert Einstein was a socialist and a Jew. He fled Nazi Germany to avoid being murdered by Nazis. This is the real world, Roald, where the National Socialist Party was a far right wing authoritarian movement. When you utter a phrase like “nazi leftists” you are spitting on the graves of the millions of Communists, mental patients, homosexuals, Romani, trade unionists, scientists, and Jews that they murdered, and the millions of soldiers who gave their lives to stop the Nazis. It’s disgusting.

                    • When discussing anything, you need to have an counterpart with an IQ over 95 in order for reason and logic to resonate within that person, if his IQ is under 95 you’ll never get to a conclusion. Not possible to win a discussion with people who got IQ undr 95.

                    • ROO2

                      Given your above reference it is abundantly clear which one of the two of us is the one lacking logical thinking ability.

                      Tel me Roald, is the Sun powered by nuclear fusion?

                    • What is size? What is pressure?

                      Nuclear fusion might be possible, who knows, but it seem to be harder than we thought, probably because of size and pressure problems.

                    • ROO2

                      Nuclear fusion might be possible, who knows

                      So what powers our main sequence star?

                      Are hydrogen bombs fiction?

                      Low IQ must be fun ..

                      From where I’m standing, you look rather uncomfortable.

                      It looks like you BFF has left the building too.

                    • Immortal600

                      Nope. Try again, shallow one. You are a fool and a blowhard that I just got tired of unmasking. You haven’t a clue about climate dynamics even with all your links that show nothing.

                    • ROO2

                      Perhaps you should help Roald out.

                      Do you agree with him that Nuclear fusion might be possible, who knows?

                      Or are you too scared to highlight the scientific ineptness of science deniers in general?

                    • Immortal600

                      What does nuclear fusion have to do with climate dynamics? Why can’t you show AGW is real? Why do you pivot to non-related issues?

                    • Nuclear fusion is his straw man as he lack the knowledge to discuss climate.

                    • .. and as always, you do not pinpoint any errors, and as always, not even trying to refute anything i have posted.

                      Low IQ must be fun ..

                    • ROO2

                      So you conceive that your “science” citation is correct and nuclear fusion does not exist?

                      What powers the Sun Roald? Where does its energy come from?

                    • ROO2

                      Your obvious evasion is obvious.

                      Can you answer the question? Or is your IQ below 95 like you claim?

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      You cited a fellow with a blog, who’s mixed up about momentum and energy. Find where he gets the “83 femptoseconds.” If you have any concept of what atoms and photons are, try not to laugh.

      • RealOldOne2

        “What the science shows, and indeed has for over a century, is that anthropogenic forcing* is overpowering the natural forcings. *Our burning of fossil fuels”
        That’s a total lie, proven by the fact that you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the climate warming over the past century. Not even the alarmist peddlers of the CO2 pseudoscience claims that climate warming prior to ~1950 was primarily due to humans.

        “That you can’t support your claims with any substantive body of research …”
        The empirical data shows that natural climate variability is still the primary cause of the climate warming of the past century.
        Solar activity has been the highest in the previous 4 centuries: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
        The empirical data from peer reviewed science, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014), shows that during the last 2 decades of the 20th century when most of the late 20th century warming occurred, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². The increase in CO2 forcing during this same time period is only ~1/10th as large, showing clearly that natural climate forcing continues to be the primary cause of climate warming. This increased solar activity and radiation reaching the earth’s surface has been the cause of the increase of Ocean Heat Content, because solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that adds heat to the ocean. Even your own climate cult admits that 90% of the global warming is found in the oceans, so that is an admission that 90% of the recent climate warming is natural.

        I’ve shown you this empirical science before, and you have been unable to refute any of it. All you do is deny it, showing once again that you doomsday climate cultists are the real “deniers”.

  • Robert

    Funny how the author doesn’t link to where the quotes are pulled from.

  • Immortal600

    To all the AGW kooks who are either commenting or reading this thread. You want to know why we don’t believe your garbage? Simply because there are many highly educated scientists who dispute the notion that human caused CO2 is changing the climate. Here is a link to a PHD in Atmospheric Physics whose theory pretty much destroys your myth. Go argue with him if you have the technical know how:

    http://edberry.com/blog/category/climate-physics/

    • 9.8m/ss

      Read Berry’s blog post again, slowly for comprehension this time. Berry’s preprint doesn’t make the argument that you suggest. He’s arguing that the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 during the industrial era is a complete coincidence. We put out all that CO2, and it disappeared, and the 40% observed increase was natural. He’s not arguing whether or not that increase contributes to global warming.

      • Immortal600

        Maybe YOU ought to read his post again. He says that human CO2 does not cause climate change. Therefore global warming is natural and not caused by humans. Maybe it is YOUR reading comprehension that needs improvement.

        • classicalmusiclover

          Perhaps you missed the fact that Berry is arguing something that is nonsensical, and that your fallacious appeal to authority fails to mask the fact that you are science-illiterate and incapable of critical reading.

          • Immortal600

            It isn’t nonsensical. You just don’t understand it. Speaking of not being capable of critical thinking, that runs strong in all of you AGW believers. Fallacious appeal to authority? That is all you AGW clowns do with citing all the world’s science academies. LOL

            • Ian5

              Yet all you can cite are disinformation professionals, ideologues and conspiracy nonsense. Also resorts to the usual childish name-calling. Never relys on any science.

              • Immortal600

                I am supplying the science but you AGW kooks just can’t seem to grasp it. Stop your whining about name-calling. You do yourself, hypocrite.

                BTW, YOU have been to Dr. Berry’s website and YOU couldn’t refute him. Why not? Yet you have the temerity to call him names. You are a joke.

                • Ian5

                  “I am supplying the science…”

                  >> Nope just links to silly disinformation sites designed to mislead.

                  “YOU have been to Dr. Berry’s website”

                  >> Yes, I have and it is full of misinformation and ideologically charged rubbish. He hasn’t published any science since the 1980s. Can you not figure that out yourself?

                  • Immortal600

                    You can’t refute his theory. All you can do is call it “misinformation”. That is why, Ian, you are a joke.

                    • Ian5

                      From Ed’s biosketch:

                      “His current research shows human emissions contribute less than 18 ppm to the present 410 ppm, and, therefore, do not cause climate change.”

                      >> His silly “theory” runs completely counter to the evidence:
                      eg, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

                      And none of this “research” has ever been accepted for publication, nor is his “theory” accepted by even the most staunch contrarians.

                      Yup, without doubt it is ‘misinformation’ and you fell for it. Let’s spell it out again for you: m-i-s-i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n.

                      Again, that’s five syllables: Mis-in-for-ma-tion

                    • Immortal600

                      You are not refuting his theory. His theory is currently under going peer review. It will get published. Your comments indicate that you don’t even understand his theory. But that’s OK, you’ve never demonstrated that you understand much.

                    • Ian5

                      One more time for you; read it slowly and repeat it 10 times in the mirror to yourself: Mis-in-for-ma-tion

                    • Immortal600

                      YOU are a joke

                    • Ian5

                      So powerful!

                    • Immortal600

                      Yep. Just like yours. LOL

            • 9.8m/ss

              Did you find where he got the “83 femptoseconds” figure from yet? Do you know enough about what atoms and photons are to laugh at the mistake?

              • Immortal600

                That is not from Dr. Berry. You really have reading comprehension issues. Try looking at the sources again. I know where you are referencing that but you think it is from Dr. Berry’s website when it isn’t. If you can’t even quote the sources correctly what does that say about YOU. Shallow thinker perhaps?

            • R. Kooi

              I just listed the outline of empirical research (peer reviewed, published and REPLICATED)

              Kindly read the abstracts listed and refute them for us !

              up 2, reference and read.

              • RealOldOne2

                “I just listed…”

                You just posted propaganda screeds that provided zero empirical evidence of human-caused climate warming.

              • Immortal600

                You are a KOOK and that is why I don’t bother to respond to your garbage. Just this one time.

                • R. Kooi

                  I am a “KOOK” because I choose to quote legit thinkers, scientists, and Research …
                  While you just like to TALK and TALK and TALK SH.T !

                  RARELY IF EVER providing links to legit. science sites to verify your Ideological Blather.

                  That is the basic qualification for being a TRUMPANZEE.

            • R. Kooi

              Name Calling…
              ….Demeaning…
              ….ALWAYS AVOIDING SCIENCE….can you say SCIENCE, boy?

              • RealOldOne2

                “…ALWAYS AVOIDING SCIENCE…”

                That’s what you climate alarmist do. I’m still waiting for any of you to cite a peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. You can’t because there are none.

                Meanwhile I’ve cited several that show that natural climate forcing, more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, increased by ~10 times more that CO2 forcing increased during the late 20th century warming. Not a single one of you climate alarmists have been able to refute the science that I have posted.

        • R. Kooi

          CO2 Catches and Reradiates Heat
          According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements,
          increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb
          more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

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

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

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

          The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. thermal radiation
          was consistent with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
          .
          This research & paper found
          * * * * * * *
          “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
          in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
          * * * * * * *
          This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
          using data from later satellites

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

          Google: Harries 2001 Research Abstract

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

          Google: Wang 2009 Research Abstract
          .
          A regional study over the central Alps found that
          downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
          enhanced greenhouse effect
          .
          Google: Philipona 2004 research abstract
          .
          Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
          allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
          downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
          .
          Google: Evans 2006 Research abstract
          .
          The results lead the authors to conclude that
          *
          *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
          that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
          greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
          by global warming.”
          .
          Google: Evans 2006 Research Abstract
          .
          This Entire planet is accumulating heat
          .
          When there is more energy coming in than escaping back to space,
          our climate accumulates heat.
          .
          The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
          adding up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land & ice.
          .
          Google: Murphy 2009 Research abstract
          .
          Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
          Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature
          record & heat capacity of the troposphere. Land & ice heat content
          (eg-the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
          .
          Google: Murphy 2009 Research Abstract
          .
          Google Ocean data: Domingues et al 2008.
          .
          From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
          rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy
          going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant
          has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
          pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
          .
          What about after 2003?
          .
          A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
          from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
          .
          Google: von Schuckmann 2009
          .
          Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the
          end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with
          other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance
          .
          GOOGLE: Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009
          .
          Clearly, The planet continues to accumulate heat.
          .
          So we see a direct line of Solid empirical evidence that
          we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip
          the rise in CO2 levels.
          .
          The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite &
          surface measurements.
          .
          The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
          planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
          .
          Google: Harries 2001 Research Abstract
          .
          When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats
          the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
          .
          Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
          Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
          .
          Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
          of infrared radiation returning to earth

          Google: Wang 2009 Research Abstract
          .

          • RealOldOne2

            All irrelevant because there is no empirical data showing that it caused any measurable climate warming.

        • R. Kooi

          Vaughan Pratt, Professor (Emeritus since 2000) at Stanford University (1981-present)
          Dec 22, 2017
          .
          Which factor is swiftly changing the earths climate?
          .
          Well, one often-mentioned factor is CO2.
          .
          Over the past millennium this graph, most of which is obtained from Antarctic ice cores, shows CO2 holding steady at 280 ± 5 ppm up to 1800, when global population was about
          a billion people and sailing ships and the horse-and-buggy
          were the most advanced forms of transportation, consuming relatively little energy per capita compared with today.
          .
          Since then Earths’ population has grown to seven billion people, each consuming an order of magnitude more energy than back then, almost entirely by burning carbon-based fuels and releasing the resulting CO2 into the atmosphere as by far the most convenient place to put it.
          .
          In the late 1700s Swiss polymath and alpinist Horace de Saussure was puzzled by why mountains were much colder at the top, despite being closer to the Sun and having less atmosphere between them and the Sun.
          .
          It was well known at the time that glass tended to trap heat from the Sun, so de Saussure speculated that the atmosphere was trapping heat the way glass does.
          .
          To confirm the heat-trapping ability of glass de Saussure
          built a nested stack of boxes each with a glass window at top.
          .
          He found that successively deeper boxes were hotter,
          with the innermost one hot enough to cook fruit.
          In 1826
          Joseph Fourier published a book in which he calculated that
          without de Saussure’s heating mechanism as applied to the atmosphere there was not enough heat from the Sun to prevent the oceans from freezing over.
          .
          In the 1850s Irish physicist John Tyndall invented this gadget.

          It allowed him to measure the heat absorbing properties of gases placed in the long tube at top center. He found that gases and vapors whose molecules had three or more atoms, such as water vapor and CO2, absorbed much more of the thermal radiation passing through the tube than did two-atom molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen.

          He concluded that the water vapor in the atmosphere was responsible for the heat trapping effect that de Saussure had guessed at and that Fourier had shown was necessary to keep the oceans from freezing over.

          In 1878 American astronomer Samuel Langley, who later founded the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
          invented the bolometer, an extremely sensitive infrared thermometer that could detect the warmth of “a cow quarter of a mile away”.

          In 1896 Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius used Langley’s bolometer to measure the heat from the Moon at various altitudes above the horizon in order to estimate the dependence of atmospheric heat trapping on amount of water vapor and CO2 along the line of sight to the Moon, a much longer path near the horizon than at 45 degrees.

          Subtracting the expected influence of water vapor gave him that of CO2. From these measurements he concluded empirically that each doubling of CO2 trapped about the same amount of heat, though without offering any explanation of why the dependency on concentration should be logarithmic as opposed to say the square root.
          .
          (Today we can see from the HITRAN tables for CO2 absorption lines that each doubling of CO2 brings 60–80 more lines into play, each line blocking about the same small amount of atmospheric window to space.)
          .
          ((tens of thousands of samplings of CO2 all around the world, test ISOTOPES & that CLEARLY Proves that the dramatic increase in CO2 comes from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
          That is a distinct test )))
          .
          But why CO2 and not water vapor?
          .
          Well, Arrhenius’s interest was in the much higher temperatures of a hundred million years ago that some geologists of the time were claiming.

          Knowing that water vapor could not change much due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, he reasoned that the next candidate in line for significant heat trapping ability
          must be CO2 and that it must have been much higher back then.
          His fellow Swede,
          physicist Anders Ångström, disputed Arrhenius’s theory on the ground that the absorption bands would have saturated well before reaching that level, but what neither Swede knew back then was that CO2 had more than 30,000 absorption lines most at strengths insufficient to play any role until CO2 had reached far higher than the 6000 ppm of a hundred million years ago.
          .
          None of this history is in dispute today in scientific circles,
          other than by a very few scientists who reject the idea that if
          CO2 continues along the trajectory in the first graph above,
          by 2100 considerable damage will have been done both to the biosphere and to coastal real estate valuations.
          ***
          https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    • R. Kooi

      By wide majority votes of memberships and in some cases a unanimous vote of boards of directors:

      The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

      Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
      Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
      Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
      Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
      Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
      Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
      Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
      Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
      Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
      Académie des Sciences, France
      Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
      Academy of Athens
      Academy of Science of Mozambique
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academy of Sciences of Moldova
      Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
      Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
      Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
      Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
      Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
      Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
      African Academy of Sciences
      Albanian Academy of Sciences
      Amazon Environmental Research Institute
      American Academy of Pediatrics
      American Anthropological Association
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
      American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      American Astronomical Society
      American Chemical Society
      American College of Preventive Medicine
      American Fisheries Society
      American Geophysical Union
      American Institute of Biological Sciences
      American Institute of Physics
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      American Public Health Association
      American Quaternary Association
      American Society for Microbiology
      American Society of Agronomy
      American Society of Civil Engineers
      American Society of Plant Biologists
      American Statistical Association
      Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
      Australian Academy of Science
      Australian Bureau of Meteorology
      Australian Coral Reef Society
      Australian Institute of Marine Science
      Australian Institute of Physics
      Australian Marine Sciences Association
      Australian Medical Association
      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
      Botanical Society of America
      Brazilian Academy of Sciences
      British Antarctic Survey
      Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
      California Academy of Sciences
      Cameroon Academy of Sciences
      Canadian Association of Physicists
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Geophysical Union
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Canadian Society of Soil Science
      Canadian Society of Zoologists
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
      Center for International Forestry Research
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
      Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
      Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
      Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Crop Science Society of America
      Cuban Academy of Sciences
      Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
      Ecological Society of America
      Ecological Society of Australia
      Environmental Protection Agency
      European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      European Physical Society
      European Science Foundation
      Federation of American Scientists
      French Academy of Sciences
      Geological Society of America
      Geological Society of Australia
      Geological Society of London
      Georgian Academy of Sciences
      German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
      Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Indian National Science Academy
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
      Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
      Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
      Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
      InterAcademy Council
      International Alliance of Research Universities
      International Arctic Science Committee
      International Association for Great Lakes Research
      International Council for Science
      International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      International Research Institute for Climate and Society
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
      Islamic World Academy of Sciences
      Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
      Kenya National Academy of Sciences
      Korean Academy of Science and Technology
      Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
      l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
      Latin American Academy of Sciences
      Latvian Academy of Sciences
      Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
      Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
      Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
      Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
      National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
      National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
      National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
      National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
      National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
      National Aeronautics and Space Administration
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      National Association of State Foresters
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      National Council of Engineers Australia
      National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      National Research Council
      National Science Foundation
      Natural England
      Natural Environment Research Council, UK
      Natural Science Collections Alliance
      Network of African Science Academies
      New York Academy of Sciences
      Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
      Nigerian Academy of Sciences
      Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
      Oklahoma Climatological Survey
      Organization of Biological Field Stations
      Pakistan Academy of Sciences
      Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
      Pew Center on Global Climate Change
      Polish Academy of Sciences
      Romanian Academy
      Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
      Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
      Royal Astronomical Society, UK
      Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
      Royal Irish Academy
      Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
      Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
      Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
      Royal Society of Canada
      Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
      Royal Society of the United Kingdom
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      Science and Technology, Australia
      Science Council of Japan
      Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
      Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
      Scripps Institution of Oceanography
      Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
      Slovak Academy of Sciences
      Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
      Society for Ecological Restoration International
      Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
      Society of American Foresters
      Society of Biology (UK)
      Society of Systematic Biologists
      Soil Science Society of America
      Sudan Academy of Sciences
      Sudanese National Academy of Science
      Tanzania Academy of Sciences
      The Wildlife Society (international)
      Turkish Academy of Sciences
      Uganda National Academy of Sciences
      Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
      United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
      Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
      Woods Hole Research Center
      World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Forestry Congress
      World Health Organization
      World Meteorological Organization
      Zambia Academy of Sciences
      Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

      • RealOldOne2

        Total fail because scientific truth isn’t determined by a show of hands. It’s determined by empirical data and the empirical data does not show that human CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

        • jmac

          Somebody alert all those scientific academies. LOL

          • RealOldOne2

            Wow, what stupidity you display. Sad.

  • Grumnut1

    “The satellites indicate that there has been little warming and that little has been natural, but this is simply ignored by the alarmists.”

    Good to hear them finally admit it.

    • R. Kooi

      if you did YOUR homework and read some of the ICE AGE SCARE Newspaper HEADLINES of the 1970’s, you would be struck by the ‘ identical phrases ‘ used throughout….
      3 scientists of the day plus 1 book
      and
      thousands of press releases promoting the idea about a new ICE AGE &/or a NEW WORLD COOLING, from the Fathers-of- Disinformation the COAL and OIL Monopolies.
      .
      ( hence the identical phraseology from newspaper to radio announcer )
      .
      by the end of the 70’s, Public Relations Departments OIL & Coal Energy Monopolies were high fiving one another…since they had peddled a million new OIL FURNACES
      and
      had successful divert politicians from dealing with the scathing Research and Warning Reports given to the presidents
      .
      EISENHOWER in 1958
      &
      .
      JOHNSON IN 1965
      .
      …about the DANGERS of CO2 Caused GLOBAL WARMING and its changes to the climate of the entire world.
      EVEN
      NATURE’S Warnings inflicted on the world in the form of
      ACID RAIN
      and
      OZONE Depletion
      ((proven to be caused by Human/Industry dumping of Chemicals into the atmosphere))
      have been ignored or ridiculed by the USUAL SUSPECTS.
      ***
      and
      then
      we have the newer nearly identical PREDICTION
      …in the 90’s by
      Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy
      .
      ….Global Warming will cease to exist around 2000 as the Earth returns to its cyclical fall in temps. into the next ice age.
      .
      How’s that working out for them??
      Well,
      1st
      THEY came with thousands of press releases about a GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE.
      Kinda like filling in the blanks while waiting for the ice age to start ?
      .
      2nd
      THEN THEY came with thousands of press releases about a GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS.
      Kinda like filling in the blanks with NOTHING but a Name Change.
      .
      3rd
      AND THEN THEY came with thousands of press releases about a GLOBAL COOLING.

      and then
      and then
      Then they pronounce a SOLAR MINIMUM was about to hit in 2007-2009…
      Look out snow in summer !
      ….except, of course, temperatures continued rising!
      .
      HMMMM ! Something smells rotten in Denmark.

      Roughly every two years we’re treated to headlines repeating the myth
      that Earth is headed for an imminent “mini ice age.”
      It happened in 2013, 2015, and again just recently at the tail end of 2017.

      Now
      we are hearing about a NEW SOLAR MINIMUM….
      what’s the old cheer?
      ” We want another one just like the other one”
      .
      A new Solar minimum is coming.
      …a new ice age,
      ….terrible cold
      …. BOOOO !
      and
      now
      they SHOW UP
      EATING
      CROW !
      .
      FROM
      THOSE LEADING
      CLIMATE CHANGE
      DENIERS.
      .
      ” A STUNNING ADMISSION:
      .
      “The UAH’s Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. John Christy?
      —both leading deniers?
      —Both having predicted that Global Warming would End
      around 2000 as the Earth would return to its falling temps.
      as we enter the next Glaciation.
      —reported just last month that the UAH data
      shows a
      “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12+C [0.22+F] per decade.”
      .
      Temperatures have been increasing all along !
      1.
      NO PAUSE !
      2.
      NO HIATUS !
      3.
      sure as hell,
      > > NO COOLING !
      .
      Dr. SPENCER:
      “my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
      between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing
      ” SPURIOUS COOLING ” because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
      satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
      .
      While every one else correct the errors in sat. data thru mathematics.
      ..
      Spencer & Christ found it ” ideologically convenient ” to allow the
      decay inaccuracies to support their previous fallacious predictions.
      .
      So
      2014 was the hottest temperatures ever recorded
      until
      2015 was the hottest temperatures ever recorded
      until
      2016 was the hottest temperatures ever recorded
      and
      2017 was the hottest 2nd to 2016 !

      • RealOldOne2

        Total propaganda screed fail, because you provided zero empirical evidence of any human-caused climate warming.

      • Grumnut1

        As David Byrne would say.
        “Stop Making Sense”
        Oh to be a highly paid propagandist like Marc Morano.

        Apparently the MAIN concern of AGW is how many lightening strikes we will have.
        http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/13/predict-both-outcomes-you-are-never-wrong-climate-studies-predict-less-more-lightning-strikes/
        Let’s employ Marc to count them.
        I want to see that spreadsheet on my desk EVERY morning Marc.
        Also, why did your parents stuff up spelling your first name?

        • R. Kooi

          Don’t ya just love how some people take limited US statistics and then CLAIM they represent the world of Climate Changes for decades and decades ?
          .
          Reminds me of the GUY that boisterously declared there was a 15 year drought in Hurricanes.
          ……by claiming hurricanes hadn’t hit the US in 15 years !
          ……….
          ……even though world wide hurricanes had actually increased and the strongest hurricane on record had occurred !

          ha ha !

          Figures don’t lie, but a whole lot of liars, figure.

          • Grumnut1

            “Figures don’t lie, but a whole lot of liars, figure.”
            Can I get that printed on a T-Shirt?
            I shall pay royalties of course.

    • R. Kooi

      That crap about “satellites indicate that there has been little warming”
      is just that, CRAP !

      ALL satellites show dramatic warming since the late 1700’s.
      Sorry
      you missed it reading Daily Caller and Breitbart as much as You do.
      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      Watch the artic Melt
      https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3991

      CO2 & Temperature Marriage:
      https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2f%2bt8mfVF&id=8999BA373F3B7B4F391B144E98514B474B7894CF&thid=OIP._-t8mfVFvINxHRaKkITjvAHaFT&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fzfacts.com%2fmetaPage%2flib%2fzFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&exph=377&expw=526&q=graph+co2+and+world+temperature+rise&simid=608046613771259242&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

  • Robert

    Ah, denialists try to play being skeptical about the near two hundred year body of literature that includes research into every posited alternative hypothesis, when the issue is really their paranoid conspiracy theory.

    “… It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. ”
    David Wojick
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

    “The number of professional skeptics is maybe about a hundred, including me, ….”
    David Wojick
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3676987757

    “.. I have been fighting climate alarmism more or less full time since 1992, …” David Wojick.
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3678065035

    • Immortal600

      You’re a lightweight, Robert. You have shown that many times.

      • R. Kooi

        and you don’t seem to discuss science at all.

        • Immortal600

          There is nothing to discuss with a KOOK like you. You aren’t convincing anyone with your garbage. So, why do you bother responding to me?

          • R. Kooi

            because you are immoral 600.
            the basic qualification to be a Trumpanzee !

            • Immortal600

              Poor KOOK. Did I hurt your wittle feelwings. LMAO

    • RealOldOne2

      “Ah, denialists try…”
      You continue to peddle your climate alarmist religion with dishonest name calling, which shows that you have lost the argument. You climate alarmists are the deniers, denying the fact that the empirical data shows that natural climate variability is still the primary cause of climate warming.

      “being skeptical about the near two hundred year body of literature …”
      You are misrepresenting history by dishonestly attempting to portray the ‘CO2 is the primary cause of climate change’ hypothesis was mainstream climate understanding and the “body of literature”, for the last 200 years. It was a fringe theory throughout most of its history and the politically driven CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism groupthink only became popular since the 1970s global cooling scare died out and the leftist globalists began to push their alarmist pseudoscience.

      One of the fringe scientists, G.S. Callendar, in a 1938 paper admitted that few climate scientists accepted the CO2 hypothesis:

      Few of those familiar with the natural heat exchanges of the atmosphere, which go into makings of our climate and weather, would be prepared to admit that activities of man could have any influence on phenomena of so vast a scale. … It is well known that the gas carbon dioxide has certain strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the spectrum, and when this fact was discovered some 70 years ago it soon led to speculation on the effect which changes in the amount of the gas in the air could have on the temperature of the earth’s surface. In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.” – Callendar(1938) ‘The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature’

      Since rates of human carbon dioxide release in the atmosphere were constantly increasing, Callendar expected that global temperature would increase during the next 20 years and would show that the CO2 hypothesis to be correct:

      “The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” – ibid

      In the next 20 years after Callendar’s paper, humans added more CO2 than ever before. But the empirical data of temperatures over the next 20 years after Callendar’s 1938 paper showed a linear decrease in temperature of ~0.3C over the next 20 years: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402 & http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/trend . So we see that the Arrhenius/Chamberlain/Callendar CO2 hypothesis failed the real world test, because global temperatures decreased over the next 40 years after Calander’s prediction, even though humans added over 2 times the total amount of human CO2 between 1938-1978 than had been added before 1938: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88dbdb5a68831dd1d6b7a202603ac5f702db4fffe2b5b9cf009dbe3a1ac18c69.png

      In 1951, the American Meteorological Society documented the fact that the CO2 hypothesis was never widely held:

      “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 when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor. In the past hundred years 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

      So you are peddling a total falsehood about the last 200 years. The most recent 20 years are yet more empirical evidence the CO2 hypothesis has failed, as humans have added 600+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (40% of all the human CO2 ever produced) and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only the natural warming of the 2015-2016 El Nino has caused any increase in temperature trend over the past 2 decades. Prior to that natural warming, the atmosphere of the atmosphere cooled slightly: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3

      • Robert

        “dishonest”
        How so?

        • RealOldOne2

          ” “dishonest” How so?”
          You’re exposing your lack of reading comprehension skills.

          1) We climate realists deny no science, you peddlers of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.

          2) By your dishonest attempt to revise history, claiming that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 pseudoscience has been the mainstream view for 200 years.

          Noted that you were unable to refute any of the facts that I posted.

          • Robert

            “…are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.”
            Oh? Where?
            As in where are those denials?

            As in where is your science?

            You are making two separate claims.

            Prove them. Cite your evidence.

            • RealOldOne2

              “Where?”
              In your climate alarmist’s propaganda: “Humans caused 100% of the past centuriy’s global warming” – https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming/

              That leaves zero % for natural causes, which is pure rubbish considering that the increase in solar activity during the 20th century has been the highest in the past 4 centuries: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

              And as well, peer reviewed science empirically shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increasing by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming.

              “Cite your evidence”
              I have. You just deny it because you are a science denier.

              I’ve challenged you over and over to cite your empirical evidence from peer reviewed science that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming and you have FAILED to be able to cite a single peer reviewed paper that does so.

              Once again you merely thrash and flail in denial of reality.
              Yet another FAIL by poor Robert.

              • Robert

                Your proof so far is an analysis of a 1938 paper written in 1951.

                And the title of an article from a website that I’ve not linked to but does support its point with reputable sources:

                Unnatural Causes
                100 percent of global warming over the past century has been caused by humans. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: “It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

                Then in 2014, research in the journal Climate Risk Management using rigorous statistical techniques revealed an objective link between global temperature increases and human activity, with a probability exceeding 99.999 percent. In fact, according to a Skeptical Science review of studies on human and natural contributions to global warming:
                “Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.”

                https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming/

                See the difference.
                1938, 1951, 2014…. and your strawman efforts to say I am saying something I didnt.

                And your claim of:”more empirical evidence the CO2 hypothesis has failed” w a do it yourself graph

                And: “politically driven CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism groupthink”

                And : “charity tip jar “graph

                And : ” leftist globalists began to push their alarmist pseudoscience.”

                So, conspiracy, cherrypicking, reciting of denialist blog talking points.

                • RealOldOne2

                  Your desperate thrashing and flailing is hilarious.

                  “a clear expert consensus…”
                  Poor duped fool, it’s a shame that you are so ignorant of science to believe it is done by a show of hands.

                  I’m still waiting for you to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century.

                  I’m still waiting for you to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability is the primary cause of climate change.

                  You lose, because you have no empirical data to support your pseudoscience religion of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2..

                  • Robert

                    What we haven’t seen is any substantive analysis of the body of research saying anything different than the conclusions in AR5 or as the site you cited says:

                    Unnatural Causes
                    100 percent of global warming over the past century has been caused by humans. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: “It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

                    Then in 2014, research in the journal Climate Risk Management using rigorous statistical techniques revealed an objective link between global temperature increases and human activity, with a probability exceeding 99.999 percent. In fact, according to a Skeptical Science review of studies on human and natural contributions to global warming:
                    “Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.”

                    https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming/

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Nope, no empirical evidence there that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming. Just evidence-free claims based on fake statistical nonsense. You fail again. So sad that you have been duped into believing the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2. You climate cult leaders depend on scientifically illiterate dupes.

                    • Robert

                      Ummm, both reports cite the evidence used to come to their conclusions.

                      Tell us why you think that virtually every nation, state, county, city, the military are developing action plans and policies for adaptation &mitigation based on the science that is pointing to us being responsible for the observed changes in our ecosystem.

                      “..scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Nope, still no empirical evidence supporting your human-caused climate cult dogmas.

                      You fail once again.

                    • Robert

                      All you are demonstrating is a very low bar for claiming success:
                      No evidence.
                      No logic.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yes, I agree you have no evidence to support your belief in your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion, or you would have presented it. You haven’t because none exists.

                      Yes, I agree that you have failed logic with all your logically fallacious arguments.

                    • Robert
                    • RealOldOne2

                      Nope, no empirical evidence there that empirically shows that the late 20th century warming was human-caused. Just model-based rubbish and your climate cult’s propaganda.
                      You fail once again.

                    • Robert

                      Thanks for reciting denialist blog talking points as proof of science education .

                      “Just model-based rubbish …”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Thanks for reciting denialist blog talking points as proof of science education”
                      You are delusional. I’m the one quoting from the AMS Compendium of Meteorology documenting your lies about the history of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.

                      You are making logically fallacious arguments, doing handwaving clown dances. Have you ever played BOZO at the circus. You’d be quite good at the part from all your practice peddling your climate cult religion.

                      “Just model-based rubbish”
                      “we find the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013)
                      When a model can’t do what it purports to do at even a 2% confidence level, it IS RUBBISH!

                    • Robert

                      You keep saying “lies”, but fail to cite an example.

                      And, after setting up that strawman, cite a 1951 paper citing a 1938 paper as evidence your strawman argument is correct.

                      As though that proves something.

                      And after being shown multle times that there is a clear understanding of what the science says, thai we understand we are the primary cause of the observations of what is happening in our ecosystem, you cite a single paper as ‘proof’ everybody but that one paper”s authors is wrong.

                      Have you bothered to check where it has been cited? How others in the field are analysing von Storch, et al”s conclusions?

                      So, strawman, cherrypicking…

                      And
                      “RealOldOne2
                      Nope, no empirical evidence there that empirically shows that the late 20th century warming was human-caused. Just model-based rubbish and your climate cult’s propaganda.
                      You fail once again.”

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3756950542

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “after setting up that strawman…”
                      Lie. I made no strawman arguments. You did. You are caught lying once again.

                      “And after being shown multiple times that there is a clear understanding of what the science says…”
                      Empirical data is what shows what the science says. You have shown no empirical data that shows humans have been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. You’ve only shown what your climate cultists SAY. That’s not science. Without any empirical evidence, that’s just an evidence-free CLAIM.

                      “So, strawman, cherrypicking”
                      Yet another lie. No cherrypicking by me.
                      Once again you fail to provide any empirical data to support your climate cult beliefs.

                      Just face reality and admit that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability is still the primary cause of climate change, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

                      Just face reality and admit that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

                      Just face reality and admit that peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an increase of 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, which was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing.

                      Just face the reality that even your fellow climate cultists admit that 90% of warming is observed in the increase in OHC and that solar radiation is the only physical climate heat transfer mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans, which means that 90% of climate warming has been natural.

                      Your continued denial of these scientific facts reveals that you are the climate denier, you are the science denier, you are the denier of reality.

                    • Robert

                      “No cherrypicking by me.”
                      Said by the guy using a single paper by von Store as proof models aren’t accurate.

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3756971869

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Said by the guy using a single paper by von Store[sic] as proof models aren’t accurate.”
                      Poor liar, the models themselves show that 95% of them aren’t accurate as they predict too much warming: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

                      Yet another clown dancing dodge by Robert, who can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming as your climate cult claims.
                      You lose once again.

                    • Robert

                      As cited in the the following prestigious journals known for their quality of science

                      95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong …
                      Dr. Roy Spencer › 2014/02 › 95-of-clim…

                      1920 × 1728 – Feb 7, 2014 – Comparison vs Cowtan & Way would be interesting. But to make it fair you’d also have to rerun the model hindcasting with the Cowtan & Way data and get new values for the adjustable parameters. IIRC, the models are …
                      90 climate model projectons versus reality | Watts Up With That?
                      Watts Up With That? › 2013/10/14 › 90-…

                      960 × 864 – Oct 14, 2013 – Reality wins, it seems. Dr Roy Spencer writes: As seen in the following graphic, over the period of the satellite record (1979-2012), both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends which are below …
                      Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren’t.
                      The Federalist › 2014/05/06 › climate-ch…

                      1920 × 1728 – May 6, 2014 – … of reality thinks your climate models are garbage.” According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated …
                      C3: Climate Model – Charts/Graphs
                      C3 Headlines › climate-model-chartsgraphs

                      400 × 359 – Those catastrophic climate predictions of doomsday that proponents of human- made global warming rely are based on massive, complex, costly computer climate models – also know as simulations and virtual climate reality. Below are …
                      95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong …
                      Watts Up With That? › 2014/02/10 › 95-…

                      1920 × 1728 – Feb 10, 2014 – I’ve updated our comparison of

                      Oh, wait, it was a blog post to start with…

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your continued handwaving clown dance of obfuscation!
                      Nope, no empirical evidence supporting your climate cult religion there.
                      Yet another Robert FAIL! Hahaha

                    • jmac

                      RealOldOne’s argument is:
                      Slothful induction, also called appeal to coincidence, is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/

                    • Immortal600

                      Why don’t you respond to him directly? That is, if you’re confident you can support your BS.

                      BTW, the dude who calls himself ‘andthentheresphysics’ couldn’t refute Dr. Berry’s theory. He is no expert.

                    • jmac

                      Why? So he can waste my time to. Been there.

                    • Immortal600

                      Right. You are afraid. Figures.

                    • jmac

                      I don’t know why you thought I was on the lookout for another lonely and desperate dipshyt science denier, to waste time with. He’s been trolling his same old BS and cherry picked graphs for years.

                    • Immortal600

                      Stuff you obviously can’t refute. got it.

                    • jmac

                      I just did in my comment to Robert.

                      For his cherry picked graph, which starts at 1998.

                      RealOldOne2, the Cherry Pick fairy and his meaningless graph. It’s the long-term range (30-plus year cycles) that scientists look at to determine real changes in the climate system, and the changes scientists see are unmistakable. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics. Such as explained here by his own source of woodfortrees: http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends

                      It’s funny watching deniers. On the one hand they like to use the 1997-98 El Nino to “claim” a pause (their favorite starting point for a cherry pick), then in the next breath use the last big one to say that it’s not to be counted as an indication of warming. 🙂

                      Cherry picking a short time frame of data is a classic cherry pick. A longer time frame such as this shows why: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-360/scale:0.007/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/trend/offset:-0.1

                      The evidence of climate change is based on long-term trends over 20-30 years or more (red line). (Data from NOAA NCDC).

                      https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/faqs/graphics/short-term-variations-versus-long-term-trend

                      Yes, it is a classic cherry pick that shows no long term trend. Just a meaningless graph between two points that shows nothing of value for establishing any kind of trend about the climate.

                      Here is but one example of cherry picking by Breitbart: https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

                      Another example of cherry picking similar to RealOldOne: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/how-stupid-does-david-rose-think-you-are/
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/offset:-0.1

                    • jmac

                      Pretty cool.
                      Picture of Single Trapped Atom Wins UK Science Photography Prize
                      https://gizmodo.com/picture-of-single-trapped-atom-wins-uk-science-photogra-1822957405

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Yeah, Very awesome

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Models aren’t 100% accurate, for sure… but, as I find myself repeating a lot to these people, neither are maps..

                    • Robert

                      “accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability is still the primary cause of climate change,”

                      “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Sorry that you don’t understand how science is done. Not by propaganda statements by peddlers of your climate alarmism religion.

                      You’re still doing your handwaving clown dancing to dodge the fact that you can’t present any peer reviewed empirical science that supports your climate cult religion. Sad.

                    • Robert

                      Oh, sciencey. ..
                      “…climate alarmism religion.”

                      Wonder when we’ll see that thorough analysis of the scientific literature showing

                      “… peer reviewed science empriically shows that during the late 20th century warming there was an increase of 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, which was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing..”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Another dodge. Sad.

                    • jmac

                      RealOldOne sounds like Rush Limbaugh. 🙂

              • Robert

                Climate4you…..
                Published science?
                Gone missing

                • RealOldOne2

                  “Climaet4you … Published science”
                  Another pathetic dodge and science denial. Yes, that plot of TSI showing that solar activity was the higher during the last half of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 4 centuries IS published science, from Lean’s peer reviewed papers and from the World Radiation Center, as the graph states. I guess you haven’t learned how to read a graph yet. Sad.

                  “Gone missing”
                  Yes, your acceptance of reality and your intelligence has gone missing. But you’re not alone. Your fellow duped doomsday climate cultist are just as big deniers of reality and ignorant of science.

                  • Robert

                    Odd you can’t cite a published graph but have to rely on climate4you….

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Odd you can’t cite a published graph”
                      Another pathetic denial of reality. That is a published graph.

                      Yet another doge because you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability is the primary cause of climate warming, and you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate cult claims.

                      You lose again.

                    • Robert

                      Cite the page, journal name, issue, doi

                      Or your definition of “published”.
                      “That is a published graph.”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your clown dancing and denial of reality.

                    • Robert

                      So, you can’t.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      So you’re denying reality that the published sources are documented on the graph, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif . You are a discredited liar and fool. Sad.

                      Amazing that you are so committed to your false pseudoscience climate cult religion that you can’t even cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically supports it that you are willing to discredit and make a total fool of yourself. Shows what ideological blindness and commitment to a doomsday cult can doe. Sad.

                    • Robert

                      Oh, but your claim is that the graph was “published..”

                      So, thanks for demonstrating “.
                      your clown dancing and denial of reality.”

                      If your argument had any calidity, then you could cite substantive reports and analysis published in reputable journals.
                      But, instead, your sources are websites that argue the science is wrong.

                      And repeating claims after having had them shown to be false.

                    • Robert

                      Oh, but your claim is that the graph was published..

                      So, thanks for demonstrating “.
                      your clown dancing and denial of reality.”

                      If your argument had any validity, then you could cite substantive reports and analysis published in reputable journals.
                      But, instead, your sources are websites that argue the science is wrong.

                    • Robert

                      “can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability “.

                      Your own source, futurism, cited two studies, two major reports that analyzed the journal published literature. I’ve cited a 12 resources covering the same research.

                      So, we can choose to believe a commenter on a political blog claiming people who understand that there is a broad, clear understanding of the primary driver of the observations are “alarmists”, “climate cult “, “duped doomsday climate cultist”, “real deniers, of the science and empirical data”, ” peddlers of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 “,.

                      Or we can understand that there is a 200 yr body of research that has been looked at, analysed, reviewed by scientists who have published with near unanimous consensus that we are causing what is being observed.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Poor Robert, still doing your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation and dodging the fact that you can’t cite any empirical science to support your false climate cult religion. Sad.

                      “Your own source…”
                      LOL @ your continued demonstration of stupidity! So sad that you deny the reality that I cited that source to expose the stupidity of your climate cult’s claim that 100% of global climate change is human-caused. And contrary to your lie, there was NO link to any empirical science that showed climate warming was human-caused. So sad that you resort to such easy to expose lies.

                      “So, we can choose to believe a commenter…”
                      Hahaha. Poor Robert, lying and denying empirical data and science again. So sad.

                      “Or we can understand that there is a 200 yr body of researched…”
                      Hahahaha Right back to your original lie that I exposed in my first comment to you! I showed that there was a 150 year REJECTION of your silly anti-science CO2 hypothesis. Only in the last several decades has that politically driven pseudoscience become popular.

                      Was your intent to expose yourself as a moron? Or did you do it accidentally? Either way, you’ve proven yourself to be a duped fool.

                    • Robert

                      So your inability to cite actual published sources supporting your assertions is shown by your insulting obfuscation, and more empty assertions.

                      And somehow, that makes you think you’ve proven something other than your assertions have no science.

                      Thanks.

                      “…that I cited that source to…”
                      “…there was a 150 year REJECTION…”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “So your inability to cite actual published sources supporting your assertions…”
                      Your projection and delusional denial of reality is astounding. Everyone can see that you are the one who has been unable to 1) cite any peer reviewed science that empirically falsified the null climate hypothesis of natural climate variability as the continued primary cause of climate warming, and 2) cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

                      Meanwhile your lie is exposed because I have cited the following peer reviewed papers numerous times to you and you have never been able to refute any of that science. All you do is handwave with silly obfuscation. Sad.

                      Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014) found that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. CO2 forcing only increased by ~0.4W/m². Here are the cites and quotes from the papers:

                      “Significant increasing trends in DSR [DownwardSurface 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 2.2Wm⁻² per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” –
                      Title: ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave budget’
                      Author: N. Hatzianastassiou, et.al.
                      Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
                      DoP: 01 Nov 2005
                      SRef-ID: 1680-7324/acp/2005-5-2847

                      “The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².”
                      Title: ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and Earth’s reflectance’
                      Author, P.R. Goode, E. Pallé
                      Journal: Journal of ATMOSPHERIC and SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
                      DoP: Sept 2007
                      DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011

                      “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.” –
                      Title: ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
                      Author: R.T. Pinker, et al.
                      Journal: Science
                      DoP: 6 May 2005
                      DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
                      (0.16W/m²/yr x 18 years=2.88W/m² for 1983-2001)

                      “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.” –
                      Title: ‘A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979-2011)’
                      Author: J. Herman, et al.,
                      Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
                      DoP: 27 Aug 2013
                      DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-8505-2013

                      “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” –
                      Title: ‘Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
                      Author: John McLean
                      Journal: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
                      DoP: October 24, 2014
                      DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066

                      Poor Robert is once again exposed as thrashing and flailing as you repeatedly deny reality and lie as you attempt to defend your climate cult religion with jihadist zeal.

                    • Robert

                      So, we have the insulting Internet comment or who claims graphs generated at climate you are “published”, and who delivers a short list of papers which he says proves virtually every published scientist is wrong….

                      Or, we can read well written, heavily sourced analysis from a range of reputable organizations :

                      Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some Internet commenter wants to argue.

                      “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL! Sorry, but repeating your climate cult propaganda which only makes empirical evidence-free CLAIMS and does NOT include any empirical data supporting your pseudoscience only further exposes you as a fanatical, scientifically illiterate duped climate cult zealot.

                      Poor Robert FAILS yet again, as you can’t cite any peer reviewed science that empirically supports your false climate cult religion. All you can do is post false propaganda based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models!
                      You’re such a total effing JOKE! Hahahahahahaha

              • AnOilMan

                Nope. All natural sources are modeled and measured.

                Lets look at your graph.. Or right… record temperatures for the last 10 years, and solar radiation is in decline. Thanks for backing Robert. Its been a big help.

                • eric m

                  All natural sources are modeled and measured? Wrong! To this day and well into the future we discover forcings ,many not well understood =not quantifiable at this point ,so they cannot be applied to models.
                  :https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11719

                  • AnOilMan

                    You just referenced a paper that is totally off topic. Internal variability is a concern, and quite well understood. When you remove internal variability, you get exactly what is happening to our climate.

                    Since internal cycles aren’t actually forcing they aren’t exactly easy to figure out. They are also changing as global warming alters the planet.

                    I’m not sure why you backed me up, but thanks.
                    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
                    https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

                    • eric m

                      You made the claim that all natural variability is well understood and modeled. That is a false claim. The paper i cited makes the case that newly discovered forcings are very complex . until they are understood well enough to break these down into quantifiable numbers, models will continue to be off as they have been since forever .

                    • AnOilMan

                      I did not say that. Read my post.. no wait… let me read it to you; “All natural sources are modeled and measured.”

                      You cited a paper that was referring to internal variability within earth’s climate. They aren’t the same thing. When ENSO occurs for instance, no energy is added or accumulated in Earth’s Climate.

                      And the models are spot on. Thanks for bringing that up.
                      https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/compare2.jpg

                    • eric m

                      the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the
                      past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and
                      that climate models cannot account for the observations we already have
                      let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the
                      future. It also makes what has happened in the past 50 years seem a
                      little less unusual.so not sure where your getting “models are spot on”

                    • AnOilMan

                      You have not cited any deviations from models to reality. Climate models also don’t predict volcanoes. They don’t predict internal variance like ENSO, in fact there’s a slew of things they don’t predict outside of global warming.

                      There was no hiatus. What you speak of has another term.. Its called, “Statistically Insignificant”. Do you understand that? Here’s a graph for you to help understand the basics;
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784
                      https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/srep16784-f3.jpg

                      Your two choices are to either understand short term effects not in models, but is in temperature measurements, or to understand the statistics that show how significant the numbers really are.

                      Personally, I predict people like you will always extend as far back in time as to include 1998 which was a temperature spike. Over the last 20 years global warming deniers have always extended their ‘no warming since X’ to include 1998. Never mind the fact that models don’t measure short weather effects or geological events. But hey! You think they do! WOWZER!

                    • eric m

                      Thank you for confirming the fact that models are lacking and unable to handle many complex things;such as ENSO, volcanoes and many other important happenings in nature. And yes you are correct,they don’t predict anything besides global warming . Therein lies the problem. That is what happens when models are incomplete. Easily proven by most every model showing more warming than reality . Not sure why LIA being a global phenomenon or the hiatus would be considered insignificant ,considering that would blow holes in your narratives. How about we just cut to the chase and you show empirical proof that humans are causing the climate to change in some catastrophic /extreme or runaway manner.

                    • AnOilMan

                      You have not offered any citations, and you’ve refuse to answer any questions about statistics and weather. You are a coward. (Or stupid..)

                      All models predict global warming accurately. This is all they do. And they are more than a little bit complete. But hey, you think they need to predict internal variances and volcanoes. WOW. I’m not sure why, since we won’t learn anything. But you really think climate scientists need to predict volcanoes. WOW. I think that’s crazy, but its what you need. 🙂

                      All models are spot on for error, we’re inside the, 95% confidence interval all the way.
                      https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ipcc/images/e/ee/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4.jpg

                      There was no hiatus. Do you understand the difference between climate forcings, and volcanoesweather? At all?
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784
                      https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/srep16784-f3.jpg

                    • eric m

                      haven’t offered any citations ? I cited a published paper . I listed the findings of the paper . If you have a problem with it,please take it up with the author. Maybe ask for help if you are having trouble . “Researchers working at the Australian National University Research
                      School of Earth Sciences have discovered century-scale patterns in Pacific rainfall and temperature, and linked them with global climate changes in the past 2000 years. These past El Niño (ENSO) oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time. Member of the team Alena Kimbrough says,“We’ve shown ENSO is an important part of the climate system that has influenced global temperatures and rainfall over the past millennium…Our findings, together with climate model simulations, highlight the likelihood that century-scale variations in tropical Pacific climate
                      modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global
                      temperature.”

                    • AnOilMan

                      That paper does not say in any way, that ENSO drives global warming. At All. Its talking about short term internal variability. Read it before you cite it.

                      Here.. from the discussion… Yeah. Sun and CO2 ends LIA;
                      “Instead, it is more likely that the LIA global cooling was initiated by a decline in solar irradiance (and lower atmospheric CO2 and potentially increased volcanic activity)60 and amplified by the strengthened PWC that occurred in parallel with a latitudinal contraction of the ITCZ41.”

                      They are telling you that global warming will continue as expected, and it may be a little high or a little low from ENSO. There’s nothing new there. And as per the lead author… the global warming will play out.

                      “”Until we can model this lower-frequency behaviour in the tropical Pacific, one can only speculate on how the warming will play out over the next few decades,” said lead author Dr Michael Griffiths from William Paterson University, in the United States.”
                      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160609115117.htm

                      So again. Please offer a citation explaining your position. In the mean time… here’s global warming with and without ENSO;
                      https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

                    • eric m

                      I cite published papers ,and you cite alarmist blogs. Nobody said that ENSO drives global warming . I recommend you ask for help since you are having issues . I listed the talking points of the paper which refute your original claim that all in nature is known and modeled in regards to GW. If you have a problem with the findings , feel free to write your own paper or argue with the authors. Nothing you have said refutes any of the findings . feel free to review them again as a reminder.

                    • AnOilMan

                      I’m not trying to refute your citation. I’m reading it. Again, I ask you to offer evidence that the models are wrong. Please.

                      You say… models are HOT (meaning temperatures are LOW)…
                      You cite… a paper that states that ENSO is making temperatures LOW,
                      Which would… make models look HOT.

                      I’m not sure where your logic actually goes here. You’re saying the models are right. Why are models looking looking High.. Here’s the answer…
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11719

                      ENSO is internal variability… everyone knows this. Your citation states that. You citation states that ENSO doesn’t cause global warming, and in fact physical factors drive global warming. Everyone knows this.

                    • eric m

                      your attempt to misrepresent my claims ,as well as the papers findings is quite humorous. I never said models are HOT. The papers findings do not make the claim that ENSO is making temps low. like I said you should ask for help as you are obviously struggling .Nothing you have replied has any basis in reality. Where do you get the idea that I said the models were right ? when I have repeatedly said just the opposite, with a published paper to back it up . My citation states that they have discovered another factor that effects climate ; a natural factor . that til this can be better understood and input into the models , they will continue to be off. now since every claim you just made about that paper has nothing to do with the findings whatsoever; sounds like things you just made up. but please continue to put your foot in your mouth . it is quite hilarious.

                    • AnOilMan

                      Stop editing your posts you lazy sleaze bag. Like really. What kind of idiot are you?

                      So… sometimes when you edit a post in discus, it adds new carriage returns. I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn’t check;
                      “the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the
                      past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and
                      that climate models cannot account for the observations we already have
                      let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the
                      future. It also makes what has happened in the past 50 years seem a
                      little less unusual.so not sure where your getting “models are spot on””

                      http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3769863446

                    • eric m

                      lol …what in heavens are you talking about ? what did I edit? Are you trying to deflect regarding your wacky responses that had nothing whatsoever to do with my comments or the papers findings? every response from you had nothing to do with anything . Nobody said ENSO is causing global warming or cooling. that and everything else you said makes no sense. you have me confused with someone eles.

                    • eric m

                      Once again you are misrepresenting what I and the paper claim. Nobody is making a claim that ENSO is making temperatures low. I am sorry if your comprehension is lacking. Nobody is making a claim that ENSO causes global warming. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. or a different paper. None of those things you mention have anything to do with what I said or the findings of that paper. Not even close. I’m sure it’s a simple mistake on your part. But you are obviously confused. Maybe someone here can help you if you ask nicely.

                    • AnOilMan

                      Your cited paper states that current temperatures are low because of ENSO. I recommend reading it. Its never too late to do that for the first time. In the mean time, I think I’ve had enough of cowards like you who can’t even stand by their words.

                      How do you live with yourself at night? How? I couldn’t imagine living with the shame of being in your skin. I’d be afraid of mirrors.

                      Editing posts really means you don’t stand by anything you say. Or as they say, the douche doesn’t fall far from the bag…
                      http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3769863446

                    • eric m

                      your deflections are feeble at best. I edited nothing .not sure what you are talking about or why it would matter. please point out exactly what you are talking about so I can laugh even harder at your failed attempts of groveling and deflecting. all that typing from you and none of it has anything to do with what me or that paper claimed. Now you are on to name calling and deflection ,since frustration is setting in. would you like me to list the findings of that paper for a 5th time ,since you are so far off base ?

                    • eric m

                      here are the papers findings : The hiatus was indeed real. LIA was a global event. that climate models cannot account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.that century-scale variations in tropical Pacific climate modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global
                      temperature.” now if you have a problem with those findings or continue to hallucinate and respond with nonsense , I am going to assume you are just a crazy person . If you don’t like the findings of the paper , feel free to contact the authors and see if they don’t laugh in your face.

                    • eric m

                      “Your cited paper states that current temperatures are low because of ENSO. ” – Where does it say that? ,or here let me help, it doesn’t say that . “You cite… a paper that states that ENSO is making temperatures LOW, ” no the paper does not state that. “That paper does not say in any way, that ENSO drives global warming. ” hey -you got one right !!! except that me or the paper never made that claim so ???

                    • eric m

                      PACIFIC STALAGMITES CAST DOUBT ON CLIMATE MODELS AND PROJECTIONS
                      Date: 10/06/16 Dr David Whitehouse

                      There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models cannot account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future. It also makes what has happened in the past 50 years seem a little less unusual. This is however an interesting paper that deserves wide consideration, but as it doesn’t tow what some regard as a “party-line” it will probably get few mentions in the media.

                      Researchers working at the Australian National University Research School of Earth Sciences have discovered century-scale patterns in Pacific rainfall and temperature, and linked them with global climate changes in the past 2000 years. These past El Niño (ENSO) oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time. Member of the team Alena Kimbrough says, “We’ve shown ENSO is an important part of the climate system that has influenced global temperatures and rainfall over the past millennium…Our findings, together with climate model simulations, highlight the likelihood that century-scale variations in tropical Pacific climate modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global temperature.”

                      The team measured trace elements and stable isotopes in stalagmites from the Indonesian island of Flores and used them to reconstruct ancient rainfall, comparing them to records from East Asia and the central-eastern equatorial Pacific. They found that northern hemisphere warming and droughts between the years 950 and 1250 corresponded to an El Niño-like state in the Pacific, which switched to a La Niña-like pattern during a cold period between 1350 and 1900. They found periods of predominantly El Niño-like patterns for several hundred years that alternate with La Niña patterns, impacting on global climate over the last 2000 years. Climate models cannot reproduce this.

                      “Our results highlight significant discrepancies between the proxy records and model simulations for the past millennium. Critically, these discrepancies coincide with century-scale anomalies in the strength of the Pacific Walker Circulation. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the low-frequency Pacific variability was a forced response to variable solar intensity and changing teleconnections to higher latitudes that are not simulated by the models, or that non-climatic processes have influenced the proxies…the paleodata-model mismatch supports the possibility that unforced, low-frequency internal climate variability (that is difficult for models to simulate) was responsible for at least some of the global temperature change of the past millennium.”

                      The researchers say that the La Nina-like pattern is thought to be a factor contributing to the recent so-called ‘warming hiatus’ and earlier twentieth century cool and warm decades. “Therefore, our analysis of multicentury hydroclimate variability suggests that projections of tropical rainfall patterns, and global temperature extremes, will remain uncertain until paleoclimate records and models consistently capture the lower-frequency variability, and associated feedbacks, in the tropical Pacific.” Lead author Dr Michael Griffiths from William Paterson University, in the United States, added, “Until we can model this lower-frequency behaviour in the tropical Pacific, one can only speculate on how the warming will play out over the next few decades.”

                      Thus we have another natural climatic change mechanism that is relevant to how we asses the climatic changes that

                    • AnOilMan

                      So… David Whitehouse… Paid troll. Nice.

                      And Ignorant! He never studied any of this, and he’s so stupid he can’t publish. Wow.
                      https://www.desmogblog.com/david-whitehouse

                    • eric m

                      refuse to answer your questions? what question have you asked ?

          • Robert

            “…unable to refute any of the facts that I posted.”

            Yup. You were correct; in 1951 a person wrote they didn’t see support for Svarte’s paper.

            Let’s me check….
            Yup, it is 2018

            • jmac

              lol

              • RealOldOne2

                Yes, Robert’s thrashing and flailing as he failed to refute anything that I posted was hilarious.

                • jmac

                  RealOldOne, the cherry pick fairy, is a well know idiot troll. Ignore him.

                  • RealOldOne2

                    “the cherry pick fairy, is a well know [sic] idiot troll.”
                    Nice projection there troll.

                    • Immortal600

                      jmac is another idiot thinking he understands something he clearly doesn’t. It is humorous that he can’t refute any of your posts.

                    • ROO2

                      You understand physics?

                      Ah good. Now tell me, if two objects are in thermal equilibrium do they stop radiating electromagnetic energy or not?

                    • Immortal600

                      I’m not playing your simpleton games, KOOK.

            • RealOldOne2

              “in 1951 a person wrote…”
              No, not “a person”. It was the conclusion and best analysis of the body of science on the climate system in the mid-1900s.

              “The purpose of the Compendium of Meteorology is to take stock of the present position of meteorology, to summarize an appraise the knowledge which untiring research has been able to wrest from nature during past years, and to indicate the avenues of further studies and research which need to be explored in order to extend the frontiers of our knowledge.” – American Meteorology Society’s 1951 Compendium on Meteorology

              And not only did the “present position of meteorology” reject your CO2 hypothesis, it confirmed that the accepted theory of the cause of climatic change was solar variability. Your CO2 hypothesis wasn’t even in the top 3 hypotheses:

              “Geological weather changes. The cause of the ice ages has been and still is a subject of lively debate. Of the many theories that have been propounded, three have seemed particularly attractive and have received the most attention. These are (1) the theory of distribution of insolational heating, (2) the theory of mountain or continent building, and (3) the theory of solar variability
              Climatic weather changes. Climatic weather changes, with their smaller amplitudes, have received less attention than geological changes. Of the theories discussed above for the geological changes, only the theory of solar variability could carry over to explain climatic changes. …
              Secular weather changes. No cause of the secular weather changes, other than possible solar effects, has been seriously offered. …

              THE SOLAR HYPOTHESIS AS THE PRIMARY FACTOR CONTROLLING THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF ANOMALOUS WEATHER CHANGES [caps in original as the heading of next section] The discussion of the preceding pages indicates in certain respects the general over-all aptness of the solar explanation for the entire range of irregular weather fluctuations” – ibid

              You continue to:

              1) deny the reality and fail to refute the fact that the mainstream climate science of the mid-1900s documented that fact that your CO2 hypothesis was never widely held and was rejected as a fringe theory that was not supported by the real world empirical data and

              2) deny the reality that the accepted hypothesis of the cause of climate change was solar variability.

              “Yup, it is 2018”
              Yup, and STILL since 1951 there has been no empirical data showing that humans or CO2 have been the primary cause of any climate warming.

              Robert FAILS once again. Hilarious how you climate cult fanatics defend your cherished climate cult religion with jihadist zeal, just as eminent scientists have recognized:

              “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

              Other eminent scientists have recognized that these climate alarmist aren’t doing science, they’re doing religion, cult religion:

              “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )

              “global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/

              “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

              You are peddling debunked rubbish pseudoscience Robert.

              • Robert

                Wow.
                Where, exact quote:did I say that there has never been a debate about what changes the climate?

                Your efforts at strawman indicate you don’t have an argument or that you don’t read well.

                • RealOldOne2

                  “Where, exact quote: did I say that there has never been a debate about what changes the climate?”
                  Pathetic strawman to dodge the fact that I’ve exposed that you were lying when you claimed that your CO2 hypothesis has been accepted mainstream science for 200 years.

                  Yet another failed attempt by a poor duped climate cult fanatic to defend his cherished doomsday climate cult religion.

                  • Robert

                    So your claim isn’t supportable by evidence.

                    Thanks.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “So your claim isn’t supported by evidence”
                      LOL. Poor Robert is so dim that you don’t understand that it is YOUR claims that are not supported by empirical evidence.

          • Robert

            Thanks for the upvote!

            RealOldOne2 upvoted you on 1.5 degrees of climate madness 17 minutes ago
            Robert an hour ago
            “…are the real deniers, of the science

          • Robert

            “We climate realists deny no science, you peddlers of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.”

            From your source:

            Unnatural Causes 100 percent of global warming over the past century has been caused by humans. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: “It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” Then in 2014, research in the journal Climate Risk Management using rigorous statistical techniques revealed an objective link between global temperature increases and human activity, with a probability exceeding 99.999 percent. In fact, according to a Skeptical Science review of studies on human and natural contributions to global warming: “Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.”

            https://futurism.com/humans-caused-100-of-the-past-centurys-global-warming/

            • RealOldOne2

              LOL @ your dodge. That source was in response to your request to show that you climate cultists denied natural climate change.
              You are revealing your stupidity when you can’t understand that if you claim that 100% of climate change is due to humans, that means there is 0% left to be natural. Hahahaha

              Still waiting for you to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability is the primary cause of climate change.

              I’m still waiting for you to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

      • Robert

        “You are misrepresenting history by dishonestly attempting to portray the ‘CO2 is the primary cause of climate change’ hypothesis was mainstream climate understanding ”

        Every piece of actual research skpetics and denialists point to is in that body of research. That includes every actual peer reviewed paper on every hypothesis.

        What a review shows is one hypothesis has grown through research while others were dropped, found to be going in the wrong direction, were negligable in strength and effect.

        Further, we see daily how one paper is brought forward as proof, talking points are shown to have come from a denialist blog, how there is a documented countering effort that is funded for political purpose.

        • RealOldOne2

          Blathering your false propaganda proves nothing, except how duped you are.
          You fail once again, as you refuted nothing that I posted and you presented no empirical data to support your CO2 climate alarmist dogma.

          • ROO2

            Oh, the evidence free assertion really helps your rebuttal.

            Nice move.

            • RealOldOne2

              Poor serial impersonator, there was nothing to rebut in Robert’s comment. He agreed that the solar hypothesis has grown through research, and that the CO2 hypothesis has dropped because the real world empirical evidence falsifies it.

              He was just following your alarmist cult tactic of lying, obfuscating and denying reality, just like you do.

      • Robert

        “1951”

        And by the way, rather more fully examined at the American Institute of Physics’
        The Discovery of Global Warming

        https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

        Got them fancy footnote thingies an’everything

        • RealOldOne2

          “1951”
          Yes, contemporary documentation that your CO2 alarmism hypothesis was never widely held and was rejected because of real world empirical data showing lack of correlation of CO2 increase and warming.

          “rather more fully examined …”
          More of your climate cult’s dishonest historical revisionism.
          Doesn’t refute the fact that even promoters of your CO2 climate cult hypothesis admitted that your theory was never widely held and was a fringe theory.

          Once again you thrash and flail in a failed desperate attempt to peddle your false pseudoscience.

          • Robert

            1951 and “never”

            Up at the top or down at the bottom of your screen the date should be showing.

  • R. Kooi

    This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED
    in Temperatues about 7000-8000 years ago.
    Since then, temps have been slowly falling,
    in spits & spurts, as we slide into Earth’s
    most powerful cyclical Event:
    . Glaciation !
    .
    THE CAUSES OF the next ICE AGE continues to this very day
    BUT
    the FALLING temps. ENDED ABRUPTLY in the mid to late 1700’s.
    AND
    Since then, temps have been rising.
    .
    Look for yourself:
    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
    .
    Earth is still Being Pulled, by orbit, AWAY from the Sun.
    Earth’s Axial Tilt is AWAY from the Sun.
    .
    What Terminated Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle.
    .
    Only the Enhanced Green House Effect Explains this ongoing event!

    Look:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
    .
    1799
    Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
    Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
    .
    1799
    Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed changes
    in climate which he stated was probably caused by man.

    1811
    Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to
    Human Activities & Industrialization.
    .
    1856
    “…the work of Eunice Foote, who three years prior to the
    start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar
    experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases,
    such as CO2 and water vapor.
    .
    The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention
    in 1856. …was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases
    in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

    http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/..
    .
    CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
    .
    Satellite & surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space
    at CO2/H2O (& other Green House Gasses)absorption wavelengths.
    .
    Ocean & surface temperature measurements continue to climb, even though
    ALL the CAUSES of Ice Ages continue to this day.

    These Research studies find the planet
    continues to accumulate heat. Year after year.

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

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

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

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

    The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. thermal radiation
    was consistent with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
    .
    This research & paper found
    * * * * * * *
    “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
    in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
    * * * * * * *
    This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
    using data from later satellites

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

    Google: Harries 2001 Research Abstract

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

    Google: Wang 2009 Research Abstract
    .
    A regional study over the central Alps found that
    downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
    enhanced greenhouse effect
    .
    Google: Philipona 2004 research abstract
    .
    Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
    allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
    downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
    .
    Google: Evans 2006 Research abstract
    .
    The results lead the authors to conclude that
    *
    *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
    that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
    greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
    by global warming.”
    .
    Google: Evans 2006 Research Abstract
    .
    This Entire planet is accumulating heat
    .
    When there is more energy coming in than escaping back to space,
    our climate accumulates heat.
    .
    The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
    adding up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land & ice.
    .
    Google: Murphy 2009 Research abstract
    .

    • RealOldOne2

      Your typical cut and paste propaganda screed.
      Yet you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of recent climate warming.
      You have nothing.

      • ROO2

        There are plenty of papers that show CO2 has been the primary cause of recent climate warming.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2991

        I’ve yet to find a single one that supports your claim that EM does not travel in opposing directions; that a blackbody does not radiate EM energy according to its temperature; or anything on your discovery of a device that can see beyond the edge of the observable Universe.

        Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some citations?

        • Immortal600

          Why are you using RealOldOne’s moniker?

          • ROO2

            I’m not. Perhaps you would like to point to any comment by RealOldOne, I’ve seen none here.

            • Immortal600

              You are a liar.

              • ROO2

                I’m not, point to a comment made by disqus user RealOldOne.

                Can you do that?

                • Immortal600

                  Your coyness belies your phoniness. RealOldOne2 has roasted you in the past and YOU couldn’t take it. So you invented ROO2 to mimic him as if you are fooling anyone. You like most, if not all, of your fellow AGW cranks are FRAUDS.

                  • ROO2

                    RealOldOne2 has roasted you in the past

                    Indeed, the person with no scientific degree that claims EM radiation cannot travel in opposing directions as it would violate the 2nd law has roasted all of the worlds scientists over the last 150 years. Unfortunately for him, he’s considered deranged by those in the know.

                    you invented ROO2 to mimic him

                    So, is it the avatar, name or both that you find so confusingly similar?

                    • Immortal600

                      You’ve been exposed, fool.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “the person with no scientific degree that claims EM radiation cannot travel in opposing directions as it would violate the 2nd law …”
                      Poor liar, I’ve never said that.

                      Yes, you invented the ROO2 name after numerous other attempts, Real0ld0ne2, RealOldOne3 failed and caused you to be blocked from websites. People did and still do call me ROO2 for short. Your sordid history of serial impersonation of me is documented here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867

                      It’s honoring that you think so highly of me and are envious of my scientific intelligence that you strive to be me. Sadly, your comments reveal that you don’t have the IQ to ever approach my level of scientific knowledge.

                    • Immortal600

                      He is one sad little man. jmac is right behind him.

                    • ROO2

                      I’m sorry for making you feel inadequate with your friend Roald.

                      There, there.

                    • Immortal600

                      Nope. Wrong again, fraud. Your fragile ego is showing. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      Got to grips with nuclear fusion and quantum mechanics yet?

                      It seems not. Poor you. ;-(

                    • Immortal600

                      Deflection again. I told you, I’m not interested in playing your simpleton games. The only thing that matters is that YOU are a fraud.

                    • ROO2

                      Your lack of comprehension is letting you down.

                      Do try and get even the faintest grasp of science, otherwise you look rather dim, like now. 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      Why? Because I don’t play your games? You are one sad little man for sure!

                    • Mugger

                      interesting to read about RealOldOne2’s problems with his stalker. ROO2 is definitely the most ignorant of the Cagw trolls, he’s like the little runt that hangs around at the back of the crowd hoping to pile in after someone else has done all the fighting.
                      Ps he is probably jmac as well.

                    • Immortal600

                      That possibility did occur to me. Nice catch!

                    • Mugger

                      It’s also quite probable that these are general accounts tag teamed by the SKS crowd.
                      I’ve noticed on occasion a curious change of personality accompanied by widely varying science capability, even up to competent undergraduate.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      The fanatical climate cult peddlers have admitted to having multiple sock puppet accounts to troll with. They travel around in packs like baboons attacking anyone who dares to point out that empirical science doesn’t not support their climate cult religion’s dogmas.
                      They are a pathetic lot. But their rage and anger is understandable, as their cherished cult religion is crashing and burning as Mother Nature exposes it to be a scam/hoax/fraud/lie. Two decades, 40% of all the human CO2 ever produced added to the atmosphere, and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only the natural warming of another El Nino has caused any increase. They are following the stages of grief of the death of their beloved cult religion; denial, anger, bargaining, depression. They haven’t got to acceptance yet.

                    • Immortal600

                      I am frustrating the heck out of ROO2 and it is FUN!! He is a sad little man.

                    • Mugger

                      They’ve got a long way to go on the 7 stages, Most are in denial.

                    • ROO2

                      “the person with no scientific degree that claims EM radiation cannot travel in opposing directions as it would violate the 2nd law …”
                      Poor liar, I’ve never said that.

                      Ah OK, a colder black body radiates a photon of energy that arrives at a warmer black body.

                      Where does that energy now reside?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your handwaving clown dance. You are just obfuscating by introducing “photons” into a simple thermodynamics problem!

                      “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’.
                      Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

                      ROO2 FAILS once again.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are getting schooled. LMAO

                  • jmac

                    BullHockeyt! Realoldone, the cherry pick fairy, has never roasted anyone, much less ROO2.

                    • Immortal600

                      Is ROO2 your boyfriend or something? LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      Funnily enough, it was such homophobic rants that RealOldOne2 managed to get himself banned from James Delingpoles climate denial articles.

                      You must belong to the same church.

                    • Immortal600

                      There you go, jumping to conclusions with no basis in fact. There was nothing homophobic in asking that question. Only in your feeble mind was there something along those lines. You are a goof. Paranoid too ?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “it was such homophobic rants that RealOldONe2 managed to get himself banned from James Dellingpole’s climate denial articles.”
                      You are lying once again, proven by your inability to link to any “homophobic rant” by me. You climate cult fanatics are so dishonest it’s pathetic.

                    • jmac

                      Yep. RealOldOne2 is a known ignorant and vulgar troll. Ignore. There is a reason he blocks his comment history. Check out HopeForPeace’s summary of his posts.
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecowatch/world8217s_carbon_budget_is_only_half_as_big_as_thought/#comment-2546715628

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Hahahaha. Bringing up Hopeless One, who has admitted that she trolls these boards “for a living”.

                      Her MO is to troll, making stupid and vulgar comments in order to incite a response, and then mischaracterize and lie to put people in a bad light.
                      She is the one who posted to me:

                      HopeforPeace:”You are a disgusting POS DB.”

                      HopeforPeace: “did you put your wife out?”

                      Hopeforpeace was exposed as the “Whackjob of the day” here: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/whack-job-of-the-day/

                      Hopeforpeace was further exposed here: ://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/hope-and-chicken/
                      and here: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/as-predicted-hope-chickens-out/

                      She’s just as vulgar as you are, with your “you’re an idiot”, and she’s even more ignorant of science than you are.

                    • jmac

                      She deserved everything, right?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yes, as Tony Heller exposed, she did deserve the title of ‘Whackjob of the Day’ & ‘Hope Chickens Out’ .

                    • jmac

                      You, the cherry pick fairy, said a whole lot worse than that, didn’t you. You need help. Even Dano has noted some of your triggered posts. Stating, you are poorly socialized and likely lonely too.
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/this_one_chart_shows_just_how_effective_a_sealed_border_is_the_daily_caller_20/#comment-2597325689

                    • Immortal600

                      Dano2, the fraud? Ever notice that he doesn’t come here any more? That’s because someone outed his phoniness and he ran away like the chump he is.

                    • ROO2

                      To be fair he did roast himself and get himself banned. His one achievement in life.

                  • ROO2

                    So you cannot? It was a simple request.

                    • Immortal600

                      You’ve been exposed so you can stop with your nonsense, fraud.

            • RealOldOne2

              “I’m not. Perhaps you would like to point to any comment by RealOldOne, I’ve seen none here.”
              There are several here: http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-global-warming-alarmism-is-about-to-hit/#comment-3633791248

              Hovering over the avatar on your fake impersonation account of me shows that you have made 128 comments impersonating me.
              The proof that is you is found here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867

              You have been proven to be a liar and dishonest serial impersonator and a fraud.

          • R. Kooi

            Again and again off topic….can’t discuss science so you wander all over the board.

            Robert RealOldOne2 • 9 minutes ago
            “We climate realists deny no science, you peddlers of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.”
            From your source:

            Unnatural Causes 100 percent of global warming over the past century has been caused by humans. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: “It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

            Then in 2014, research in the journal Climate Risk Management using rigorous statistical techniques revealed an objective link between global temperature increases and human activity, with a probability exceeding 99.999 percent. In fact, according to a Skeptical Science review of studies on human and natural contributions to global warming:
            “Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.”

            https://futurism.com/humans

        • RealOldOne2

          “There are plenty of papers tha tshow CO2 has been the primary cause of recent climate warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2991

          From your source: “For each contribution, dedicated models are forced with results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)”
          FAIL. Climate models are not empirical data.

          “I’ve yet to find a single one that supports your claim the EM does not travel in opposing directions; that a blackbody does not radiate EM energy according to its temperature.”
          All fabricated lies which I have never stated, proven by the fact that you can’t link to any of m comments where I did.

          My poor dishonest serial impersonator (documented here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867 ), you fail once again.

          • ROO2

            Climate models are not empirical data.

            Climate models perform known physics, and the uncertainties in any empirical data from empirically measured forcings are represented in the bound presented in the paper.

            Feel free to write a rebuttal paper to Nature, though I doubt a former janitor will be capable of such a task.

            “I’ve yet to find a single one that supports your claim the EM does not travel in opposing directions; that a blackbody does not radiate EM energy according to its temperature.” All fabricated lies which I have never stated, proven by the fact that you can’t link to any of m comments where I did.

            “When it has a radiant emittance of 480W/m² but there is another object that has a radiant emittance of 240W/m² emitting toward it, the single resultant EM wave is uni-directional of the magnitude of 240W/m².”

            http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/bill-nye-freaks-out-after-scientist-schools-him-on-climate-change/#comment-3281647078

            One body is losing 480 Joules every second, the other 240 Joules every second, yet all you have to show for the 720 Joules leaving each body every second is your pseudoscience claim of a result EM wave of 240 Joules.

            It’s lie the 1st law of thermodynamics is beyond your comprehension, janitor.

            • Immortal600

              It is your fragile ego causing you to mimic him. You are one sad little man, fraud

              • ROO2

                Perhaps you should deal with the physics first.

                Although after your rather embarrassing escapade the other day when you pseudoscience buddy posted links claiming that nuclear fusion did not exist, and quantum mechanics was a fallacy, I quite understand why you decided to run away with your tail between your legs.

                • Immortal600

                  You are a fraud and a sad little man. There is nothing to discuss with a KOOK like you.

                  • ROO2

                    Keep running from the scary science you don’t understand.

                    • Immortal600

                      Nice deflection. The topic is your fragile ego and why you have the need to mimic RealOldONe 2’s moniker. Why?

                    • ROO2

                      Nice deflection.

                      The deflection was clearly all yours.

                      So, in summary who do you hold in higher regard from your pseudoscience buddies:

                      (1) The one that claims nuclear fusion and quantum mechanics does not exist
                      (2) The ones that claims he can see beyond the edge of the observable Universe?

                      It’s a difficult one. Who are you going to go for?

                    • Immortal600

                      Why do you have to use someone else’s moniker? Your fragile ego is on full display. Everyone can see it, fraud.

                    • R. Kooi

                      Way off topic as usual.

                    • ROO2

                      Immortal600 is flailing and his crutch has disappeared.

                      He is without knowledge and support.

                    • Immortal600

                      I have the knowledge that you have a fragile ego and you are a fraud. What else do I need? LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      Uh huh. And to what level did you study science and in what subject?

                    • Immortal600

                      That makes not a bit of difference, fraud. It is obvious that YOU are no expert and that is all that matters, little man. Get that?

                    • ROO2

                      That makes not a bit of difference

                      Person that claims science is wrong but has no understanding of science claims it makes no difference.

                      That is a nice summary of your position, blind religious faith.

                      Thanks.

                    • Immortal600

                      Projection on your part. You can’t show AGW is real no matter how many links you supply and THAT frustrates you, little man. get it?

                    • ROO2

                      Nobody disputes that AGW is real, even RealOldOne2 does not dispute that point.

                      That you claim to be scientifically illiterate is a frank admission on your part.

                      Thanks you.

                    • Robert

                      Actually…

                      RealOldOne2 13 minutes ago
                      Nope, no empirical evidence there that empirically shows that the late 20th century warming was human-caused. Just model-based rubbish and your climate cult’s propaganda.
                      You fail once again.

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3756950542

                    • Immortal600

                      That’s a lie. Plenty of scientists claim that humans are not changing the climate.i.e. AGW is NOT real. Global warming, if it is happening, is NATURAL. You are just plain dumb

                    • R. Kooi

                      Poor Poor Pitiful Immoral 600!

                    • Immortal600

                      STALKER. It is nice to be in your head rent free. LMAO

                    • R. Kooi

                      He is a poor poor pitiful Trumpanzee !

                    • Immortal600

                      There is no “topic” to discuss with you climate KOOKS. Don’t you understand that we aren’t interested in your viewpoints on climate?

                    • R. Kooi

                      OFF TOPIC AGAIN….way off.

                      Is that what gets you off?

                    • Immortal600

                      You stalking me? Why do you have the need to interact with me? HUH?

                  • R. Kooi

                    “kook”
                    I thought that was a term of endearment you reserved just for me …….
                    You Two Timer !

                    • Immortal600

                      Nah. It applies to all you AGW believers.

                    • ROO2

                      So Pruitt too?

                      Perhaps it would be easier to name the people in the world that aren’t kooks?

                    • Immortal600

                      Only the people coming here to troll Like you, Kooi, Robert , jmac, and others. You are so dense that you can’t see that I’m not interested in any debate with you. You are no scientist (that’s obvious) and all you are doing is trolling here. So you get what you deserve, derision.

                    • ROO2

                      You are so dense that you can’t see that I’m not interested in any debate with you.

                      Claims intellectually challenged commentator on the “disqus” platform in response to a post by somebody else.

                      I think I might need a replacement irony meter, this one has just exploded.

                      You are no scientist (that’s obvious)

                      Is it? You were very evasive about what science you have studied and to what level.

                      Please give an overview of your academic science qualifications? You’d not want people to think you were some religious nutcase with no comprehension of the subject when you are claiming experts in their field are wrong, surely?

                    • Immortal600

                      Keep trying, fraud. My expertise is of no importance. I don’t claim to be an expert and I’m not a scientist but I can spot blowhards from a mile away and YOU fit the bill.

                    • ROO2

                      I don’t claim to be an expert and I’m not a scientist

                      BINGO!

                    • Immortal600

                      You feel good with that? GREAT. YOU are no expert and YOU aren’t a scientist as well. BINGO

                    • ROO2

                      It’s irrelevant that I am indeed a scientist. What is relevant is that you, somebody who is not an expert and not a scientist, is claiming that scientific experts are wrong.

                      And all with no comprehension of the subject on which you are commenting.

                      An argument from a point of idiocy.

                      To be fair that was blatantly obvious from the outset. 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      YOU are no scientist. Stop lying. You look pathetic. You have NO clue what my comprehension on he subject is. Again, you make assumptions with no facts. That is your MO though, fraud.

                    • ROO2

                      YOU are no scientist. Stop lying.

                      I’ve a postgraduate degree in Chemistry and have worked as an environmental scientist thereafter. As I said before this is indeed irrelevant.

                      You have NO clue what my comprehension on he subject is. Again, you make assumptions with no facts.

                      You stated you were not an expert and not a scientist. I think that is sufficient.

                    • Immortal600

                      Another of your fallacies. You can claim that you have a postgraduate degree in Chemistry but I’m not buying it. Your posts are too shallow and don’t demonstrate that level of education. You are simply a liar.

                    • ROO2

                      You can claim that you have a postgraduate degree in Chemistry but I’m not buying it.

                      I didn’t expect you to as I stated. For somebody self proclaimed of zero expertise and no scientific ability, I fully understand why you have no ability to comprehend anyone’s ability on the subject.

                    • Immortal600

                      You expose your ignorance. Not being an expert doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the science, because I do. You clearly don’t. You talk about ENERGY as if it is HEAT which it may or may not be. Your education ha you deluded into believing you understand something you clearly don’t.

                    • ROO2

                      EM waves transfer energy from one location to another, it is the net transfer of energy that is considered heat.

                      As Maxwell clearly states: Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

                      The question therefore is do you agree with Maxwell that two bodies of the same temperature are continuously transferring energy, or do you agree with RealOldOne2 who thinks the both bodies sentiently stop radiating EM energy?

                    • Immortal600

                      You really don’t have a clue. HEAT and ENERGY are NOT the same thing!!!!!! You obviously did not do well in your Thermodynamics class.

                      This is from a thermodynamics textbook and it applies to you:

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

                      Think about that awhile.

                    • ROO2

                      You really don’t have a clue. HEAT and ENERGY are NOT the same thing!

                      Perhaps you would like to point to where I claimed they were?

                      I see you avoided the question too. I sense you are uncomfortable about answering. Let’s try again:

                      The question therefore is do you agree with Maxwell that two bodies of the same temperature are continuously transferring energy, or do you agree with RealOldOne2 who thinks the both bodies sentiently stop radiating EM energy?

                    • Immortal600

                      Tell us how that statement of Maxwell’s applies to CO2 causing the Earth to warm?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      ROO2, my dishonest serial impersonator continues to lie when he falsely claims that I think both objects at the same temperature “stop radiating EM energy?”.
                      They continue radiating energy, but NO energy is transferred from either to the other because the EM waves create a single resultant standing wave, which neither moves or transfers any energy: “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

                      ROO2 believes in a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd Kind, a continuous, perpetual, 100% efficient, lossless back and forth thermal energy transfer between two objects which are at the same temperature. That violates the universal entropy principle which says that in any energy transfer process, there is always some loss because in any energy transfer process the entropy always increases. That’s why perpetual motion machines can’t exist in the real world. They only exist in the fantasy la-la land of climate cult pseudoscience.

              • R. Kooi

                here is immoral600….off topic again

                • Immortal600

                  STALKER ALERT!!

                  • ROO2

                    Thanks for the heads up, you do seem the perfect material too.

                    • Immortal600

                      Something you intimately know about. LMAO You are stalking RealOldOne2. He has roasted you so many times it isn’t funny!

                    • ROO2

                      Is that so? Please provide an example.

                    • Immortal600

                      It is all over THIS thread. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      Then link to a comment on this thread.

                      If you want me to hold your hand to go through the science, just ask.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are pathetic.

                    • ROO2

                      You are without evidence to justify your previous claim.

                      That is rather embarrassing. 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      Anybody can look at this thread and see that you are lying. You are a sad little man. a FRAUD too. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      I asked you to provide a link to any single comment on this thread that you thought substantiated your evidence free claim.

                      You could not even bring yourself to do that.

                      I think that tells anyone how vacuous your claims are.

                    • Immortal600

                      Incredible! You keep flailing away. I will let others see for themselves how shallow and desperate you are.

                    • ROO2

                      You again shy away from linking to any single comment, for fear of being questioned about science.

                      That’s rather shame for you.

                    • Immortal600

                      Nah, I’m watching you make a fool of yourself. You are doing it well with no help from me.

            • RealOldOne2

              “climate models perform known physics”
              Hahahaha. Nope. If they did, there would only need to be one. There are dozens. You FAIL again.

              LOL @ your revealing your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer as you make up stuff based on your ignorance.
              You’re a hoot!
              Still no quotes supporting your lies.

              • ROO2

                If they did, there would only need to be one. There are dozens.

                Yet rather than having a single model there are a suite of models from countries all around the world constructed from many scientists.

                The models from all such scientists arrive at the same conclusions. That is the problem you have.

                Then there is you, a janitor, who claims all of them are wrong. It’s not the best argument.

                Still no quotes supporting your lies.

                “When it has a radiant emittance of 480W/m² but there is another object that has a radiant emittance of 240W/m² emitting toward it, the single resultant EM wave is uni-directional of the magnitude of 240W/m².”

                One body is losing 480 Joules every second, the other 240 Joules every second, yet all you have to show for the 720 Joules leaving each body every second is your pseudoscience claim of a result EM wave of 240 Joules.

                *Guffaw*

                Do you do kids parties too?

                • RealOldOne2

                  “The models from all such scientists arrive at the same conclusions”
                  Proves nothing except that when you put the same garbage in, you get the same garbage out.

                  You correctly describe how EM waves interact to validate the 2nd Law which says that thermal energy flows only from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects. So what’s your point, to deny that EM waves interfere and superimpose and create a resultant EM wave? You are quite the science denier.

                  So have you got your backradiation heat collector working yet that collects twice as much heat/thermal energy as a solar collector and collects just as much heat/thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime? No, you don’t, which proves you wrong.

                  Once again my dishonest, scientifically illiterate serial impersonator fails again.

                  • ROO2

                    Proves nothing except that when you put the same garbage in, you get the same garbage out.

                    Ah, so it is not the physics in the models that is at fault but all of the worlds scientists are inputting wrong data.

                    But you obviously have the correct data to input to those models. Perhaps you could enlighten everyone what your input data would be?

                    You correctly describe how EM waves interact to validate the 2nd Law which says that thermal energy flows only from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects.

                    Yet you have just defied the 1st Law of thermodynamics in making such a pseudoscience claim.

                    Your lack of scientific knowledge knows no bounds.

                    So have you got your backradiation heat collector working yet that collects twice as much heat/thermal energy as a solar collector and collects just as much heat/thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime?

                    *checks for 2 mile thick glaciers outside house window*

                    Yep, still working fine.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “so it is not the physics in the models that is at fault but all of the worlds scientists are inputting wrong data.”
                      No, the physics which is input to all the models is garbage, so the output of all the models is garbage. Once again you demonstrate that you’re not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

                      “Yet you have just defi9ed the 1st Law of thermodynamics in making such a pseudoscience claim.”
                      Poor ignorant dupe, I’ve done no such thing. YOU have, as you have a sole constant energy source of 240W/m creating 240W/m of new, never before existing energy as 480W/m of energy is transferred away from an object whose only energy source is 240W/m. Way to go thermodynamics denier! Hahahaha

                      *checks for 2 mile thick glaciers outside house window* Yep, still working fine.”
                      LOL @ your stupidity. Nope, that’s no a backradiation heat/thermal energy collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime.
                      Once again your exposed your ignorance of science. Hilarious level of stupidity there!

                    • ROO2

                      No, the physics which is input to all the models is garbage

                      Wow, so you actually have a paper to publish showing all of the worlds scientists to be in error in the many countries that have produced models?

                      Or I am led to believe you are in internet dimwit?

                      It’s a difficult one to call…

                      you have a sole constant energy source of 240W/m creating 240W/m of new, never before existing energy as 480W/m of energy is transferred away from an object whose only energy source is 240W/m. Way to go thermodynamics denier!

                      Since when did thermodynamics prohibit reflective foil insulation blankets from reflecting energy back to their source increasing their heat content?

                      It is you that claims that the emitting body is sentient, knows the location, future location, and future temperature of every other body in the whole Universe, including bodies that are yet to form, like new stars, such that when that emitted energy arrives the body that emitted it is of a higher temperature than the body that received it, in your hamfisted incomprehension of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

                      You really are quite unhinged.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “You really are quite unhinged.”
                      LOL. You really are quite good at projection!

                      “knows the location, future location, and future temperature of every other body in the whole universe”
                      Wow you are a delusional liar. I’ve never said any such thing, and what I have posted means no such thing. Your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer cause you to delusionally believe such nonsense. Sad.

                      All your lying and handwaving is only to obfuscate that you can’t support your climate cult beliefs with empirical data and science. Sad.

                    • ROO2

                      I’ve never said any such thing

                      You’ve stated that the emission of EM energy from an object will not be absorbed by a body hotter than the emitting body but will be absorbed by a body colder than than the emitting body.

                      So, if a body emits EM energy that travels through space and reaches a colder temperature body, is that energy absorbed or not? If not where does that energy now reside?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      You’re lying again, proven by your inability to link to a comment supporting your lies. Sad.

      • Publius V. Publicola

        they confuse correlation with causation — it’s classic scientific overreach!

        • RealOldOne2

          Yes, and they reverse the cause and effect. The empirical data shows that temperatures change first, THEN CO2 levels change. They have the cause coming AFTER the effect! It doesn’t get any more stupid than that.

          Here’s the data:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f48db4df5cbc38ca843c756622008703ecc4ac880193230512800128199d8c0e.png?w=600&h=318
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b567a1366f5275a87214374ea62561e19a82dc649f9b56f54717befcb5b5bc3c.png?w=600&h=318&w=600&h=318

          This is confirmed by peer reviewed science:

          “Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …

          A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …

          As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …

          Conclusions
          There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
          (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
          (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
          (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
          (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
          (5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
          (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
          (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
          (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

          • ROO2

            But you claimed that if the atmosphere contained more CO2 then the ground would radiate less energy and therefore warm.

            So if the CO2 concentration changed first, let’s say man dug up loads of old dead stuff and burnt it, the temperature change would then follow, according to your claims.

            • RealOldOne2

              Poor liar.

              • Immortal600

                His statement made zero sense and I doubt he realizes that. He claims to be a scientist too !! What a hoot !

              • ROO2

                Really? You state that if the atmosphere had no greenhouse gases the surface of the planet would radiate more energy in its sentient grasp that it would go to space.

                So, how would increasing the CO2 concentration not reduce what is radiated from the surface according to your pseudoscience?

                You claim that two equal temperature bodies at the same temperature radiate no energy. So if the atmosphere radiated more energy towards the surface would that not mean, according to your pseudoscience, that the surface radiated less energy to space.

                • RealOldOne2

                  “You claim that two equal temperature bodies at the same temperature radiate no energy.”
                  Poor troll, you are lying again, proven by your inability to link to a comment where I said that.

                  • ROO2

                    Are you now changing your position and agreeing with the scientific position that all objects of temperature lose energy by radiation and energy is transferred from cold to hot and hot to cold, as Maxwell states?

                    Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Still obfuscating and exposing that you don’t understand the difference between radiating and transferring heat. Sad. But typical of duped doomsday cult fanatics.

                      Got that ‘backradiation’ heat collector working yet? Hahahaha

                    • ROO2

                      Do you agree with Maxwell or not?

                      I note your obvious flinch and evasion.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Poor serial impersonator, you are still thrashing and flailing as you deny the 2nd Law.
                      Got that backradiation heat/thermal energy collector working yet? Nope. You can’t fool Mother Nature and or the 2nd Law.

                      “Do you agree with Maxwell or not?”
                      Another demonstration of your inability to learn from my previous schooling on Maxwell. You lose every time you deny the 2nd Law. But I’m glad to teach you again, because others will see that Maxwell agrees with me, and does not deny the 2nd Law like you and your fellow climate alarmists do when you claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy/heat to the earth’s surface than the Sun does.

                      Maxwell agrees with me that heat/thermal energy is only transferred from higher temperature object to lower temperature objects.

                      “The loss of temperature by the hot body is not generally equal to the gain of the temperature of the cold body, but it is manifest that the two simultaneous phenomenon are due to one cause, and this cause may be described as the passage of Heat from the hot body to the cold body.”

                      Get that? Transfer of thermal energy/heat is due to one cause, the one directional flow of heat/thermal energy from the hot body to the cold body, not two causes (some heat transferring from the cold body to the warm body but more heat transferring from the hot body to the cold body). No temperature difference, no flow of heat/thermal energy, no energy in transit.

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that there are two separate causes?

                      More from Maxwell that shows he agrees with me, not you:

                      “As this is the first time we have used the word Heat, let us examine what we mean by it. We find the cooling of a hot body and the heating of a cold body happening simulataneously as parts of the same phenomenon, and we describe this phenomenon as the passage of heat from the hot body to the cold one. Heat, then, is something that may be transferred from one body to another, so as to diminish the quantity of heat in the first and increase that in the second by the same amount.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’, 1902

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that they are not part of “the same phenomenon”, but are part of TWO distinct and separate phenomena, one transfer of energy from the hot body to the cold body and a separate transfer of energy from the cold body to the hot body?

                      “When a system of bodies at different temperatures is left to itself, the transfer of heat which takes place always has the effect of rendering the temperatures of the different bodies more nearly equal, and this character of the transfer of heat, that it passes from hotter to colder bodies, is the same whether it is by radiation or by conduction that the transfer takes place.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’, 1902

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that the transfer of heat/thermal energy occurs not just from hotter to colder bodies, but also from colder bodies to hotter bodies?

                      “The law from which Carnot’s principle is deduced has been called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. … Clausius, who first stated the principle of Carnot in a manner consistent with the true theory of heat, expresses this law as follows: It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’ 1902

                      My simple heat transfer example shows that you believe that an always higher temperature object’s temperature increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object.

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that it is possible to convey thermal energy/heat from a lower temperature body to another at a higher temperature?

                      “In fact, heat, in the form of heat, never passes out of a body except when it flows by conduction or radiation into a colder body.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’ 1902

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that thermal energy/heat always passes out of a body by conduction or radiation even to hotter bodies?

                      “Definition of Higher and Lower Temperature. If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication, one of the bodies loses heat, and the other gains heat, that body which gives out heat is said to have a higher temperature than that which receives heat from it. Cor. If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication neither of them loses or gains heat, the two bodies are said to have equal temperatures or the same temperature. The two bodies are then said to be in thermal equilibrium.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’ 1902

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that both objects which are at equal temperatures both lose and gain thermal energy/heat?

                      “The distinguishing characteristic of radiant heat is, that it travels in rays like light, whence the name radiant. These rays have all the physical properties of rays of light, and are capable of reflexion, refraction, interference, and polarization.” – Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’, 1902 –

                      Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that radiant heat does not travel like light and does not interfere and superimpose like light waves do?

                      Once again, you are exposed as denying the 2nd Law.

                      There has never been an experimental demonstration of thermal energy/heat being transferring from a colder object to a hotter object, or to or from an object at the same temperature.

    • Publius V. Publicola

      very good and well thought out. Thanks!

      The ocean acts like a huge sink, I agree, and the transfer of mass CO2 to/from the oceans is a functions of temperature changes — and that big bright round thingy in the sky has something to say about that too!

      They have a problem seeing through the forest because of that huge Sequoia in their way! If they really cared about CO2 — they’d plant trees!

      • RealOldOne2

        And don’t forget that the climate system’s only physical heat transfer mechanism for transferring heat into the oceans is solar radiation. All other physical heat transfer mechanisms, conduction, latent heat of vaporization and radiation transfer heat out of the ocean.
        And since even the climate alarmists agree that 90% of global warming is observed in the warming of the oceans, they admit that 90% of climate warming has been natural.

        • ROO2

          What is the radiant power of the surface of the ocean?

          It is a near blackbody, emissivity around 0.98, how much energy does it radiate?

          • Publius V. Publicola

            you’re missing the point — radiative heat transfer is the smallest part of the climate system — it just works better for their pet theory — called the greenhouse effect — that was proven wrong almost a century ago!

            • ROO2

              RealOldOne2 states that the greenhouse effect is real – he states that the increase radiative emission from GHGs results in the surface emitting less energy than it would if it were radiating straight to space as a result of sentient molecules.

              Do you two want a quick team Derp meeting to get your stories straight?

              • Publius V. Publicola

                the GHG effect IS real — H2O is the only significant reason why we have it — CO2 is a trace gas that is MEANINGLESS — but the GHG does not cause the climate to change — the GHG is and EFFECT NOT a cause!

                Thermodynamics would be turned on its head if that were the case!

                • ROO2

                  called the greenhouse effect — that was proven wrong almost a century ago!…the GHG effect IS real

                  Obvious contradiction is obvious. That’s rather embarrassing.

                  H2O is a feedback and requires the forcing of CO2 and other GHGs to maintain its current atmospheric concentration.

                  Do try harder. 0/10

                  • Publius V. Publicola

                    stop trying to be clever and try and understand… The GHG based on CO2 was proven wrong by a number of Scientific scions of history! Maxwell for example proved Arrhenius drew inaccurate conclusions based on faulty experiments… does the earth have a giant glass bowl around it’s atmosphere!!!??!???

                    The GHG “theory” based on CO2 is a thermodynamic impossibility, but even with water it Doesn’t matter– its the convective forcing that matters — NOT radiiative — the so-called “energy budget” based on solar irradiance and CO2 LWIR back-radiation is a complete farce! Otherwise the warmer ground/ocean would be heated by the colder atmosphere — especially notable at night — which of course does not happen!

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “The GHG “theory” based on CO2 is a thermodynamic impossibility”
                      Yes, the climate alarmists peddle their pseudoscience claiming that the ghe works by transferring heat/thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, more heat/thermal energy than is transferred by the Sun. That is a denial of the 2nd Law.
                      Poor ROO2, my serial impersonator denies the 2nd Law of thermodynamics too. All he has to do is experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation heat collector that collects twice as much heat/thermal energy as a solar collector, and that collects just as much heat/thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime since according to them backradiation is transferring thermal energy/heat 24/7.

                      Sadly, he can’t, which proves him wrong:

                      “Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

                    • Publius V. Publicola

                      lol… I luv the guy… he reminds me of my old Chem E Thermo professor!

                    • ROO2

                      Yes, the climate alarmists peddle their pseudoscience claiming that the ghe works by transferring heat/thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, more heat/thermal energy than is transferred by the Sun. That is a denial of the 2nd Law.

                      You should listen to Richard Feynman:

                      “Although when I say two things at the same temperature, which means you have balance, it doesn’t mean they have the same energy in them. It just means it’s just as easy to pick energy off of one as to pick it off the other, so as you put them next to each other, nothing apparently happens. They pass energy back and forth equally. The net result is nothing.”

                      Or Maxwell:

                      “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

                      Or Planck:

                      “A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.”

                      Strange that not a single one agrees with your pseudoscience. LOL

                    • Immortal600

                      You confuse Energy with HEAT. They are not interchangeable. Energy is a conserved quantity, heat is NOT. You are dumb as a rock.

                    • ROO2

                      You confuse Energy with HEAT.

                      I do no such thing.

                      I agree with Maxwell, Feynman and Planck. The atmosphere transfers large amounts of energy to the surface of the planet via IR EM energy.

                      The surface, on average, transfers more energy to the atmosphere and through the atmospheric window. The net energy transfer, heat, is from the surface. This does not violate the 2nd law.

                      RealOldOne2 claims that the emission of a photon from a cold body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body as that would violate the 2nd law.

                      I think I’ll stick with the physics from the greats rather than a former janitor.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are talking about things you just don’t understand. I will take this Atmospheric Physicist’s (PHD) word over yours any day of the week:

                      http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/

                    • ROO2

                      Sure. Why don’t you ask him whether whether the atmosphere radiates energy to the surface of the planet? I’ll wait for your response.

                    • Immortal600

                      He shows that human induced CO2 does NOT change the climate. THAT is the topic here. NOTHING else.

                      You have demonstrated time and again that you are out of your league talking about climate dynamics (postgraduate degree not withstanding).

                      You got something else, fraud?

                    • ROO2

                      Your evasion suggests you do not agree with RealOldOne2?

                      Bless. Is this where you go into mute mode like you did with Roald, your other climate denial buddy?

                      LOL

                    • Immortal600

                      You can’t refute Dr. Berry’s theory. You are a fraud

                    • ROO2

                      It’s certainly not a theory. You need to looks up the scientific definition of such.

                      His basic maths is woeful too.

                      Man emits around 10 GtC per year, the atmospheric concentration goes up by around 5 GtC. Man is responsible for all of the increase, and nature acts as a sink removing some of the emitted carbon man produces.

                      Berry claims that nature is responsible for carbon increases from 280ppm to 373ppm, yet it is well established that nature is acting as carbon sink from the ocean and biomass.

                      He cannot explain where that carbon has come from naturally.

                      Radioisotopes for carbon changes inform that the carbon comes from old sequestered carbon, like oil, gas and coal deposits.

                      Basic accounting shows man to be the sole contributor to increases.

                      Reducing oxygen concentrations mirror the increasing combustion of hydrocarbons, another line of evidence that the CO2 origin is from the atmospheric combustion of old dead material.

                      If you think Berry’s rather bizarre claims overturns well established science you are rather more blunt a tool than I originally thought.

                      No wonder Berry is published in a scavenger pay to publish Journal with no impact rating or influence in the scientific community. LOL

                    • Immortal600

                      You haven’t refuted him. All you have are ad homs. Why don’t you comment THERE and tell him he’s wrong? Why not? Afraid? You are all bluster here. Go there and explain to him how he’s wrong. Do it, fraud.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Dr. Berry makes it so easy to understand that all of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is not due to humans like the climate alarmists claim.

                      The IPCC in their latest chapter on carbon balance admits that humans add only ~3% of the CO2 that is added to the atmosphere each year, and that ~97% is natural. Here are their figures: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-1a.gif & https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-1b.gif

                      Using a similar illustration to Dr. Berry’s:
                      Even though this is a continual (but not uniform) ongoing process, for this example we’ll look at it as what happens on an annual basis.

                      You’ve got a coffee mug and you add 97 ml of coffee (representing natural CO2) and 3 ml of cream, well mixed together. This represents the total CO2 added to the atmosphere every year. Now you drink 98.5 ml of the combined coffee and cream mix. This is how much CO2 the earth absorbs from the atmosphere each year. This leaves 1.5 ml in the cup, which represents the ‘imbalance’, the half of the human CO2 that is not absorbed. That 1.5 ml is still composed of 97% coffee and 3% cream.

                      Now, representing the next year, you once again add 97 ml of coffee to the cup and 3 ml cream. The total 101.5 ml well mixed liquid in the cup is still 97% coffee and 3% cream. Then you drink 100 ml of the coffee-cream mixture (all but the half of the human added amount added this year). This remaining 1.5 ml of coffee-cream mixture is still composed of 97% coffee and 3% cream.

                      You repeat this on and on indefinitely and the coffee-cream mixture is always 97% coffee and 3% cream, so no, the human portion does not accumulate in the atmosphere like the climate alarmists claim so they can peddle their anti-humanity holy jihad against CO2.
                      For only the human CO2 to accumulate, there would need to be a MAGIC world where every natural process that absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere would have to magically be sentient and be able to discriminate between a human CO2 molecule and a natural CO2 molecule. That does not happen in the real world. It only happens in the fantasyland of peddlers of junk pseudoscience of the climate alarmists’ cult religion.

                    • ROO2

                      You’ve got a coffee mug and you add 97 ml of coffee (representing natural CO2) and 3 ml of cream, well mixed together. This represents the total CO2 added to the atmosphere every year. Now you drink 98.5 ml of the combined coffee and cream mix. This is how much CO2 the earth absorbs from the atmosphere each year.

                      This is a perfect example. Nature sequesters more carbon per year than it emits. All of the atmospheric increase is therefore attributable to mans emissions. Bravo RealOldOne2 !

                    • RealOldOne2

                      You refuted nothing in my example.
                      Thanks for admitting that the human CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant.

                    • ROO2

                      I’d not say that mankinds actions to date that have lead to over a 40% increase in CO2 concentrations is insignificant.

                      Nor would any other scientist. You on the other hand, well, with your static speed of light, sentient molecules and detector that can image beyond the edge of the observable Universe, anything is possible.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Obviously you don’t understand balance.

                      Also

                      -He wasn’t driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).

                      -Don’t worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body’s atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).

                      -Ireland isn’t important; it’s only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

                      -That ibuprofen pill can’t do you any good; it’s only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

                      -The Earth is insignificant, it’s only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

                      -Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

                      -Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.

                      -A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Did your climate cult leaders teach you those obfuscation talking points at your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult catechism indoctrination classes?

                      Go ahead and cite one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate cult dogma claims. No one has ever been able to do that. Be the first.

                      And while you’re at it, how’s your backradiation heat collector coming along? I’ll be the first to congratulate you on your Nobel prize for being the first person on the planet to falsify the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

                      Since no one on the planet has ever been able to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector, answer this question:
                      If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can’t you collect it like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation?”

                      Should be easy, since according to your climate cult dogma claims that backradiation transfers twice as much thermal energy to the earth’s surface than there is solar radiation.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult catechism indoctrination classes?

                      If by all that slanderous garbage you mean theworld renowned research university I work at that ranks #1 in innovation and is one of the top research facilities in the U.S., then yes.

                      Go ahead and cite one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming

                      Ok. How about more than one?
                      Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
                      Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
                      On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
                      Deep Carbon Emissions from Volcanoes “it
                      is clear that these natural emissions were recently dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions”

                      backradiation heat collector

                      Lol, that’s pretty nonsensical. Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

                      Should be easy, since according to your climate cult dogma claims that backradiation transfers twice as much thermal energy to the earth’s surface than there is solar radiation.

                      More nonsense, strawmen fall easy.

                    • Immortal600

                      From your own links:

                      1) Here, we use a set of coordinated model experiments to confirm that the
                      satellite-observed increase in upper-tropospheric water vapor over the
                      last three decades is primarily attributable to human activities.

                      Models???? You can stop there. They prove nothing.

                      2)

                      But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most
                      importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood

                      Hmmm. not well understood. Thank you

                      After that, I didn’t bother with the rest of your garbage because it is obvious you can’t substantiate AGW.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      *ignored without reading*

                    • Immortal600

                      I read enough of them to see that they don’t do what you claim, that is substantiate AGW

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Sorry, too busy browsing google to respond to you..

                    • Immortal600

                      Tha’s ok. Have a good evening, Robert.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Ok. How about more than one”
                      1) As Immortal600 correctly pointed out Chung(2014) was climate model based, so it failed to empirically show that the late 20th century was caused primarily by anthropogenic CO2. That’s FAIL#1.

                      2) Harries(2001) provides no empirical evidence that
                      anthropogenic CO2 has caused the late 20th century climate warming. This is why:

                      In the 1st sentence of the abstract of Harries2001 (H01) alleges “a STRONG LINK between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established 3,4.”

                      This is the CRUX of the claim that Harries01 uses empirical data to PROVE that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. His statement is based on 2 refs, Mitchell95 & Tett99. What evidence is used as the basis of this alleged strong link b/t temp & ghgs in those two references?
                      – Ref.3 – Mitchell etal 1995 ‘Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols’. Abstract: “Climate models suggest … Here we use a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past & future climate”

                      Sorry, that’s not empirical data. It’s climate model simulations. GIGO. So Mitchell(1995) doesn’t provide any empirical data showing that CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming.

                      – Ref.4 – Tett etal (1999) ‘Causes of twentieth-century temperature change near the Earth’s surface’? Abstract: “The patterns of time/space changes in near-surface temperature due to the separate forcing components are simulated with a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model

                      Once again, no empirical data, but climate model simulations. So the 2nd Harries ref that allegedly established a strong link between surface temp & ghgs provides no empirical evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming. The Harries(2001) “strong link” is based totally on climate model simulations, not empirical data.

                      Back to Harries01- Immediately after the alleged ‘strong link’ based on models, Harries continues, “But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes – most importantly the hydrological cycle – that are NOT well understood”

                      An admission that the link between temp & ghgs is complicated by the ‘not well understood’ hydrological cycle. So how does Harries01 unravel this complication of moisture (humidity, clouds, etc) in the atmosphere?

                      “We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate”

                      Trace ghgs but what about water vapor, the strongest greenhouse gas?
                      “Figure1c shows.. only the effect of trace-gas changes.. omitting .. humidity changes”. Yes, they omit any changes in the strongest ghg!

                      They claim that they have experimental evidence which they present in Fig1.
                      So what does Fig.1 represent?
                      “The simulations shown in Fig.1b and c were calculated”. Again, not empirical data but simulations.

                      “Fig. 1a shows an averaged IRIS cloud-cleared … and land/island areas have been masked out … Figure 1c shows the component of the simulated spectrum that includes only the effect of trace-gas changes between 1970 and 1997 (omitting.. humidity changes)”

                      So what did Harries really do? They used empirical outgoing longwave radiation data to show that over a portion of the oceans (excluding land) trace-gas concentrations have gone up. Big deal. That has not been in dispute. Their results were not global and the did not show a total increase in ghg concentration b/c the omitted water vapor, the strongest and most abundant ghg! Only a small 1/2% change in average water vapor, from 2.00% to 2.01% would offset the entire increase in CO2 since the Industrial Era.

                      They empirically showed nothing about any temperature changes due to those increases in trace ghgs. That alleged relationship was based totally on climate model simulations.

                      And Harries(2001) omitted water vapor, which is ~98% of the ghe, “about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%.” – Lindzen(1991) Quart.J.R.Meteorol.Soc 117, 651

                      So no, Harries(2001) does not empirically show that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. And it doesn’t even deal with anthropogenic vs. natural CO2, it merely showed that trace-ghgs (excluding water vapor & clouds) increased.

                      That’s FAIL #2.

                      3) Cawley(2011) was just an attack piece on a skeptical paper on the subject of CO2 residence time. It provided zero empirical evidence of any human caused temperature change.
                      That’s FAIL #3.

                      4) Burton (2013) was about CO2 from volcanoes. It wasn’t even about global temperature change. It merely made an evidence-free CLAIM “An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations induces higher temperatures”, but provided ZERO empirical science to support that claim.
                      That’s FAIL #4.

                      You’re 0 for 4! Care to try again. I’ll expose that they don’t empirically show that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming too.

                      “that’s pretty nonsensical”
                      It is nonsensical because backradiation is not a real thermal energy transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth because that would violate the 2nd Law.
                      Thanks for confirming your climate cult’s claim that backradiation transfers 333W/m² of thermal energy to the earth’s surface is pure nonsense.

                      “Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling”
                      That shows that the only physical climate mechanism that transfers heat into the ocean is solar radiation. And since your climate cult claims that 90% of global warming is found in the increase in OHC, that’s an admission that 90% of global warming is natural. Nice OWN GOAL.

                      “strawmen fall easy”
                      Your strawmen and false claims sure did fall easy.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      “climate model based… ”

                      Translates to: “I don’t understand statistics”.

                      There were others as well…

                    • RealOldOne2

                      ” “climate model based…” Translates to: “I don’t understand statistics”.”
                      No, it translates to climate models can not accurately represent natural climate variability, which is why they can’t project future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013)

                      95% of climate models project too much warming: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

                      Climate models can’t accurately represent natural climate variability because they don’t even include most natural climate variables that influence the climate. The natural variables they include are TSI at TOA and volcanic aerosols. Thus they project temperature change primarily on the basis of CO2, succumbing to the omitted variable fallacy, ie., they falsely attribute warming to CO2 because natural variables which may have caused warming aren’t even included in the models. Reminds me of a comment made by Prof. Stott: “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by managing at the margins, one politically selected variable, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.”

                      Noted that you couldn’t refute a single thing I posted which exposed that none of the papers you cited empirically showed that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

                    • ROO2

                      Ah, the graph that could never make it into a peer reviewed publication, 5 years out of date, and still being posted by pseudoscience believers. Nice.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “the graph that could never make it into a peer reviewed publication…”
                      Strawman. It probably was never submitted as part of a paper, and it doesn’t need to be in a peer reviewed publication to be correct. Noted that you are unable to show that the graph is incorrect, you just deny it, proving you are the real science denier.
                      You are on full tilt now that you endlessly dodge the question:
                      If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can’t you collect it like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation?”
                      which proves your 2nd Law denial and proves your climate cult’s fake energy budget is pure pseudoscience.
                      Thanks for playing. Once again it was my pleasure to expose your scientific illiteracy.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      climate models can not accurately represent natural climate variability

                      While there definitely are uncertainties with climate models, they can successfully hindcast well enough to show an obvious overall warming trend: 1 If they didn’t then we would re-evaluate and change the model. In the end, one need not know with a high degree of accuracy the intricacies of the climate’s variability to show an increased warming trend: 3 Furthermore, there are no models that exist that are able to match recent observed warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account, i.e. if radiative forcings from CO2 aren’t taken into account, then models don’t match hindcasting.

                      can’t project future global temperature

                      Since models don’t predict exact temperatures and instead predict a range of temperatures, that statement is, on it’s face, an example of ignorance; the future may not be certain but we will definitely end up somewhere in the range of predicted values. We can definitely predict with enough certainty that there will be an increase in temperature.

                      vonStorch(2013)

                      Those are short-term climate variations but, as the IPCC fifth report notes:

                      “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).”

                      they falsely attribute warming to CO2 because natural variables which may have caused warming aren’t even included in the models.

                      We can most certainly attribute the warming to anthropogenic sources and not other natural sources such as volcanoes, the oceans, plant & animal respiration, decomposition of organic matter, or forest fires because they have a net negative flow from the atmosphere. For example: Out – In = Net flux –> 772Gt – 778Gt = -6Gt of CO2 from the atmosphere naturally… now, with human emissions: 772Gt + 29Gt – 778Gt = +23Gt to the atmosphere. As I originally said, that is an upset of the Balance.

                      Prof. Stott:… climate change is governed by hundreds of factors…

                      Philip Stott is not and has never been a climate scientist, he is a Biogeographer or, to put it simply, wouldn’t know…

                      Noted that you couldn’t refute a single thing I posted which exposed that none of the papers you cited empirically showed that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

                      That’s because your screed doesn’t refute any of the papers I linked just because you think models “aren’t empirical” which shows just how little you understand this. Empirical: Modeling v. Observations.

                      Some are arguing that we should not look beyond the empirical evidence. This is a serious problem because ignoring models ignores relevant information pertaining to known feedback mechanisms in the climate system.

                      Models can be wrong and, in fact, all models are ‘always’ wrong

                      The reason models are always wrong is because models are not real, they are models. A model is a way of constructing a picture to show how something operates. So they can never be reality, they are a way of viewing reality. But that does not mean a model can’t reasonably represent reality in a meaningful manner.

                      To beat a dead horse, if the model didn’t match with hindcasting we wouldn’t use it and would re-evaluate it to the point that it does match hindcasting.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Hahaha. Unloading all your propaganda doesn’t change the reality that it is BS.

                      “they can successfully hindcast…”
                      Hahaha. I’m 100% accurate in predicting all the past World Series winners, Superbowl winners, Kentucky Derby winners, stock market bull and bear markets too!

                      “don’t predict exact temperatures… “
                      Hahaha. I don’t need an expensive computer to predict that future warming is going to be 0C +/- 3C!

                      “as the IPCC fifth report states…”
                      Hahaha. Yes the models can hindcase. So can I.

                      “We can most certainly attribute the warming to anthropogenic sources…”
                      Hahaha. You can make baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS. But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data, because just as I pointed out, and you have failed to refute, there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmist religion claims.

                      “Prof. Stott is not and never has been a climate scientist…”
                      Hahaha. Irrelevant, because what he says is true. The climate system is hugely complex, with hundreds of variables, and your climate cult religion’s attempt to make the patently absurd claim that human CO2 is the driver is as misguided as it gets.

                      “That’s because your screed doesn’t refute any of the papers I linked…”
                      Hahaha. Nice strawman. I didn’t have to refute them. I just showed that they didn’t do what you claimed they did, ie. empirically show that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century climate warming.

                      And nice graph of Ocean Heat Content, which confirms that at least 90% of the late 20th century warming was natural not anthropogenic, since the only physical climate mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation.

                      And your finale is another climate model hindcast!
                      Hilarious!

                      Another total FAIL there Robert. Thanks for the laughs.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Hahaha. Unloading all your propaganda doesn’t change the reality that it is BS.

                      *eye roll* Tit for tat, calling reality BS doesn’t change it from reality ;P

                      Hahaha. I’m 100% accurate in predicting all the past World Series winners, Superbowl winners, Kentucky Derby winners, stock market bull and bear markets too!

                      Those are nice trees but they’re blocking your view of the forest.

                      Hahaha. I don’t need an expensive computer to predict that future warming is going to be 0C +/- 3C!

                      I think you mean to say in your bloviation “2C +/- 6C!”.. source… and 2C is the low ball, conservative estimate that doesn’t account for idiots like you and failure to take action.

                      Hahaha. Yes the models can hindcase. So can I.

                      They can? Nice admission that they match past behavior, which means they can then be used to accurately forecast

                      You can make baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS.

                      You’re confusing me with you 😉

                      But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data

                      Like I said, calling reality “BS” doesn’t disprove reality. I’ll just wait until you actually do something to disprove them aside from making “evidence-free CLAIMS” that models can’t predict.

                      there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming

                      There wouldn’t need to be “a single” paper that does it for the body of evidence to be convincing but… if you want it all in a single place… IPCC fifth assessment.

                      And nice graph of Ocean Heat Content

                      Myopic fool, that graph has land, ice and atmosphere too. Now I understand, you’re blind! Makes total sense.

                      the only physical climate mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation.

                      Nice misconception you have going there but the real argument is that CO2 can lower the temperature gradient of the cool skin layer, which slows the heat loss to the atmosphere and increased levels of greenhouse gases lead to more heat being stored in the oceans over the long-term.

                      I expect you to hand-wave this one off as well, with more laughter and a total lack of evidence to the contrary.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “and a total lack of evidence to the contrary”
                      Yes, you blathered your climate cult propaganda, but your comment contained a total lack of evidence to refute anything that I posted.

                      Plus you totally failed to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural variability is still the primary cause of climate change, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

                      Plus you totally failed to cite a single peer reviewed that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate cult claims.

                      You have totally failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your climate cult religion’s false dogmas.

                      Believe on, O duped climate cult fanatic!

                    • Robert Dekko

                      What a load of rubbish.

                      climate cult propaganda

                      Mhm, me and my ‘cult’ consisting of 18 reputable American scientific associations, The DOD, The US Navy, 11 international science Academies, 200 international scientific research bodies, the vast majority of publishing climate scientists, and NASA.

                      Incidentally, are you a religious person? Because then, gotta say, you’re projecting quite a bit 😉

                      your comment contained a total lack of evidence to refute anything that I posted.

                      When your comment contains more than a misunderstanding of statistics or modeling and handwaving off the peer reviewed, empirically derived papers I shared I’ll respond with more than “you don’t understand statistics.”

                      But, let’s get into this idea of yours about “propaganda” and “cults”. You hide your real name and devolve the arguments into personal insults; who pays you to lie like this? You’ve gotta be a shill, no doubt.

                    • Robert

                      How to Use Science, Cartoons, and Satire to Talk about Climate Change
                      http://citizen.hkspublications.org/2018/02/15/how-to-use-science-cartoons-and-satire-to-talk-about-climate-change/

                      Some of the phaque fizziikz seen on these threads would do the trick….

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yet another comment totally devoid of any empirical data supporting your climate alarmism groupthink, totally failing to refute anything that I posted, and in total denial of the fact that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 groupthink is not science, but religion, cult religion, peddling propaganda, because empirical data (science) doesn’t support it.

                      “But, let’s get into this idea of yours about “propaganda” and “cults”.
                      It’s not my idea. It’s the conclusion of eminent scientists:

                      “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

                      Other eminent scientists have recognized that these climate alarmist aren’t doing science, they’re doing religion, cult religion:

                      “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )

                      “global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/

                      “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

                      Your and all your other fellow climate alarmists provide evidence that these observations of eminent scientists is correct, because none of you can cite any peer reviewed science that empirically falsifies the null climate hypothesis of natural variability still being the primary cause of climate change, or cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century climate warming. Neither can any of you refute the peer reviewed empirical science that shows that temperature causes CO2 changes because temperature changes first, then CO2 changes later.

                    • Robert Dekko

                      Mhm, definitely a troll, probably paid. All I hear from you is “I don’t know what I’m talking about” over and over.

                    • Roald J. Larsen

                      “2) Harries(2001) provides no empirical evidence that
                      anthropogenic CO2 has caused the late 20th century climate warming ..”

                      Logically, if the warming back then was caused by human emissions of CO2 it would not have stopped in 1996 – 1998 because humans didn’t stop emitting CO2.

                      I.e. Human emissions of CO2 doesn’t cause warming.

                    • Immortal600

                      ROO2 and Robert Dekko are surely quick to castigate Dr. Berry but neither of them will go to his website and challenge him there. They are cowards taking potshots here. A pair of gutless fools who regard themselves as experts. What a joke!

                    • ROO2

                      You haven’t refuted him.

                      Well established science did that well before he started posting on a blog or submitting a paper to a pay to publish journal with no impact.

                      Go there and explain to him how he’s wrong.

                      That’s not how science works. His paper is so poor, wrong and irrelevant it is not even worth the time to rebut.

                      Now on the matter of equilibrium, do you think objects stop emitting electromagnetic radiation, or not?

                    • Immortal600

                      You are fraud and just exposed yourself as not being able to refute an easily understood theory. That’s why you troll here.

                    • ROO2

                      It’s not a theory you idiot. Do learn what scientific words mean.

                      That you cannot comprehend that his post is pseudoscience is exactly the reason why you posted a link to it thinking it was worthy science.

                      Classic Dunning Kruger on your part.

                    • Immortal600

                      Go look in the mirror for Dunning Kruger. It will be looking back at you. LMAO.

                      You can’t refute his “theory”. All you want to do is focus on whether I’m using the word correctly. WEAK. But that’s you. LMAO

                    • ROO2

                      I already did, and RealOldOne2 nicely set out how all of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is man made. You should read his link.

                      Berrys claims are rather hilarious.

                      How such claims claims origination from somebody with a PhD suggests he was deliberately attempting to influence a rather hopelessly educated audience, and obviously hit the jackpot with you.

                    • Immortal600

                      Me and dozens of other PHD’s. It is interesting that you refuse to go there and show him he’s wrong. Why not? Out of your comfort zone? You are a blowhard here not being able to show humans are doing anything to the climate. That is a FACT you can’t refute.

                    • ROO2

                      Me and dozens of other PHD’s[sic].

                      You imply you have a PhD? Your act just gets better and better. 😉

                      You are a blowhard here not being able to show humans are doing anything to the climate. That is a FACT you can’t refute.

                      Why would I need to? The evidence already exists that conclusively show this to be the case. You would clearly not understand the content, as your cognitive dissonance has already demonstrated.

                      Exxons own in house scientists agreed with the scientific consensus on such matters back in 1982. Peabody’s best available scientific representation in Court was Lindzen, Happer and Christy who all testified that man is changing climate, but argued that climate sensitivity is low, which the Court did not accept.

                      You flat earth/young earth religious fanatic types are quite fun, if not horrendously dim.

                    • Immortal600

                      No, I do not have a PHD but I understand how you inferred that.

                      Why do you bother with me if you think I’m so “horrendously dim”? I have given you a link to an atmospheric physicist who IS an expert. Go argue with him.

                    • ROO2

                      I have given you a link to an atmospheric physicist who IS an expert.

                      He published some papers on rainfall in the 1960s, he certainty has not published anything on radiative transfer, carbon cycles, climate science or any of the subjects on his blog in which you claim he is an expert.

                      Perhaps you need to look up what a scientific expert actually is? 😉

                    • Immortal600

                      You’re dodging. Why not show him his errors? You are sure that he’s wrong. Go tell him.

                    • ROO2

                      I’d be happy to write a rebuttal paper if he can get his dross published in Nature or Science. Perhaps you should tell him to get it into a high impact rating paper. LOL

                    • Immortal600

                      A high impact paper? Would that make his model any less valid if he didn’t? I don’t understand your reluctance to engage him if you are so interested in correcting non-believers in AGW. After all, he’s a high profile target.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “and RealOldOne2 nicely set out how all of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is man made.”
                      Your telling such blatant lies only serves to further discredit yourself. I clearly used an example similar to Dr. Berry’s which shows that only a few % are due to humans. You were unable to refute the example and show that it was wrong. You lose again.

                    • ROO2

                      Your example showed that nature absorbed more CO2 than nature emitted.

                      All of the resultant CO2 increase is therefore man made.

                      You are rather daft, and really not that bright.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “All of the resultant CO2 increase is therefore man made”
                      Your fatal flaw is assuming that natural CO2 fluxes are constant and globally uniform among all sinks. FAIL.

                      “You are rather daft, and really not that bright.”
                      You are very good at projection, seeing that you have never shown that I have posted a science error.

                      So quit dodging and answer the simple question:
                      If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can’t you collect it like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation?”

                    • ROO2

                      Your fatal flaw is assuming that natural CO2 fluxes are constant and globally uniform among all sinks.

                      Man emits 10 GtC to the atmosphere, atmospheric concentration increases by 5 GtC. Nature is a net sink.

                      All atmospheric increase is due to man.

                      It seems basic arithmetic is beyond you, which is no surprise.

                      You are very good at projection, seeing that you have never shown that I have posted a science error.

                      Except for:
                      – Your claims that bidirectional EM violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics;
                      – Your sentient detector that received no energy from the object it is pointed at but radiates energy according to the temperature it is point at allowing you to see beyond the edge of the observable universe (Still awaiting the Nobel prize for that one no doubt);
                      – Your perfectly radiating blackbody that does not radiate according to its temperature;
                      – Your claims EM energy interferes which prevents energy from a colder body reaching a warmer one – a concept which would mean it would be impossible to see your reflection in a mirror.
                      – Your thought experiment when a reflective radiation blanket was introduced. Now that was hilarious. This was the blackbody radiator fed with 240 W, that need to transfer 240W at equilibrium to a reflective blanket that only absorbs 10% of the incident energy. How much energy does the blackbody radiate? A question you eternally run away from with your tail between your legs. LOL
                      – Your claims global brightening from reduced cloud cover is a climate forcing without considering the effect of such cloud cover changes on outgoing IR. Certainly not science on your part.

                      I’m sure there are many more, do remind me…

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry addresses all the issues you bring up. Why not go there and argue with him? What do you have to lose? Enlighten him.

                    • ROO2

                      Your post seems to be in the wrong place. This is about RealOldOne2’s fantasy physics. Do keep up.

                    • Immortal600

                      It is an appropriate comment.

                    • ROO2

                      Tell me. Do you think there is a detector that receives no energy that will radiate its own energy according to the object it is pointed at even if such an object is beyond the boundary of the observable universe?

                      Do you find that concept fact or fiction?

                    • Immortal600

                      Irrelevant

                    • Roald J. Larsen

                      Why waste time discussing with someone who clearly don’t understand climate, science and are even less interested in the facts?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      You’re still dodging the simple question:
                      If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can’t you collect it like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation?”
                      which proves you concede that backradiation is not a real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the surface.
                      Thanks for admitting defeat.
                      Your list of lies just further discredits you. Sad. But typical of duped doomsday cult fanatics.

                    • evenminded

                      When RelaOldOne2 writes, “If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy”, what does that mean?

                      Are those photons that make up the 333W/m² of backradiation real or not?

                    • Immortal600

                      Ask him

                    • evenminded

                      Oh I have, and he makes no sense.

                      Since you upvoted him I thought that you might be able to explain it to me.

                      I mean are those 333 W/m^2 of photons real or not? He seems to be saying that they are not.

                      Is that your understanding of what he is saying?

                    • Immortal600

                      He gave you his response.

                    • evenminded

                      Yes, he did. He claims that photons are not relevant.

                      As a scientist, I do not understand how photons are not relevant to the emission, transfer, and absorption of electromagnetic energy.

                      Do you understand why the emission and absorption of photons would not be relevant?

                    • RealOldOne2

                      This is a simple thermodynamics and heat transfer problem.

                      “Heat transfer is that science which seeks to predict the energy transfer which may take place between material bodies as a result of a temperature difference. Thermodynamics teaches that this energy transfer is defined as heat.” – ‘Heat Transfer’, J.P. Holman, 2nd edition, p.1

                      Your bringing up photons is just obfuscation and a dodge because photons are not relevant to the question of thermal energy/heat transfer between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface. That energy transfer is defined by the S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴).

                      So answer the simple question:
                      If those 333W/m² of backradiation are a real transfer of thermal energy, then why can’t you collect it like you can collect the 161W/m² of solar radiation?”

                    • evenminded

                      Photons are real physical quantities.

                      CO2 molecules emit LWR photons, H2O molecules emit LWR photons, GHG molecules emit LWR photons.

                      Does the ground absorb these photons that are emitted by these molecules or not?

                    • jmac
                    • ROO2

                      Uh huh. LOL 😉

                    • RealOldOne2

                      The climate alarmist trolls are angry and in meltdown because their cherished CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion is being exposed for the pseudoscientific scam/hoax/fraud/lie that it is. Two decades, 600+ billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere (40% of all human CO2 ever produced) and it hasn’t caused the atmosphere’s temperature to increase. Only the natural 2015-2016 El Nino, which was the release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere has caused any increase. Prior to that natural warming, the temperature of the atmosphere decreased slightly: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3

                      The do all sorts of clown dances to distract and obfuscate from the real world empirical data that shows their CO2 dogma is wrong.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Poor serial impersonator, you are just obfuscating from the fact that you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. But since it once again exposes your scientific illiteracy as you deny the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, I’m glad to once expose your ignorance of science.

                      “Feynman”

                      Sorry, Feynman never experimentally demonstrated that thermal energy/heat was transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, or experimentally demonstrated that two objects at the same temperature transferred thermal energy/heat to the other object.

                      “Maxwell”
                      Maxwell agrees with me, not you, as I showed in my other comment to you: http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/05/1-5-degrees-of-climate-madness/#comment-3757708579

                      “Planck”
                      Planck agrees with me, not you. His statement was consistent with the 2nd Law that heat/thermal energy is only transferred from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects. Nothing in that statement said that thermal energy/heat was transferred from a colder object like the cold atmosphere to a warmer object

                      “Strange that not a single one agrees with your pseudoscience.”
                      So sad that your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer causes you to not understand that Feynman, Maxwell and Planck agree with me and disagree with you.

                      The only way for you to show that you are correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat/thermal energy as a solar collector does, and collects just as much heat/thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime.

                    • Immortal600

                      well done !!! You have roasted him yet again!!!

                    • ROO2

                      You are not the sharpest tool in the box, are you Immortal600?

                    • Immortal600

                      Sharper than you it appears.

                    • ROO2

                      Dunning Kruger has that effect.

                    • Immortal600

                      You ought to know, being the poster child.

                    • ROO2

                      Let’s test that shall we? Easy one to start.

                      Two bodies in equilibrium separated by a vacuum, do they stop emitted photons to each other or is there a continuous exchange of energy between them?

                    • ROO2

                      It’s 5 hours in.

                      You had a question below. Are you struggling or did you forget?

                    • Robert Dekko

                      He’s the rubberist of tools… anything that you observe about him he just turns and tries everything he can to make it stick to you. He insists like a 11 year old in a playground fight “Nu uh! Nu uh! That’s You, HAHAH!”

                    • Immortal600

                      I obviously got inside your head, fragile one. Not only that, I exposed you as a fraud. Hurts, huh? LMAO

                    • RealOldOne2

                      He’s hopelessly ignorant of science. But fun to expose as being an ignorant 2nd Law denier.

                    • ROO2

                      Maxwell agrees with me, not you

                      Alas Maxwell is explicitly clear:

                      ”The higher the temperature of a body, the greater its radiation is found to be, so that when the temperatures of the bodies are unequal the hotter bodies will emit more radiation than they receive from the colder bodies, and therefore, on the whole, heat will be lost by the hotter and gained by the colder bodies till thermal equilibrium is attained.”

                      “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

                      “The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.”

                      I agree with Maxwell that all objects above absolute zero are continuously emitting thermal radiation.

                      I agree with Maxwell’s point that at equilibrium two bodies they exchange equal amounts of thermal radiation with each other.

                      I agree with Maxwell that the 2nd law is a mathematical truth, and is violated [as has been shown empirically], such violation can only occur if, as Maxwell correctly states that hotter bodies absorb thermal radiation from colder bodies.

                      The only way for you to show that you are correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat/thermal energy as a solar collector does

                      *checks out of window*

                      Seems to be working just fine. Surface temperatures are nowhere near -18C on average.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Poor dupe, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the fact that radiating is not the same thing as transferring thermal energy. Your ignorance and denial of reality knows no bounds. Sad.

                      “*checks out of window*”
                      Hahaha Sorry, that’s not a working backradiation collector. No increase in temperature, no thermal energy transfer.
                      You lose again fool.

                    • ROO2

                      you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the fact that radiating is not the same thing as transferring thermal energy.

                      Radiating is the emission of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, from a body that consequently loses that energy from the creation of electromagnetic waves.

                      The radiant exitance being the radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area. Measured in terms of the energy per unit time and area lost by the surface (Wm^-2).

                      Radiating is the creation of thermal radiation which is subsequently lost by a body.

                      That you do not grasp elementary physical concepts highlights the level of science denial religious kooks like you are willing to employ.

                      that’s not a working backradiation collector

                      Over 150 years of established and verified science begs to differ.

                      https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

                    • Immortal600

                      Ah yes, the bogus heat energy flow diagram. Check out how this guy takes that apart:

                      https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/10/thermal-radiation-basics-and-their.html

                    • ROO2

                      Wow, blackbodies that do not radiate according to their temperature.

                      I guess you never know what kind of pseudoscience Derp you will find in blogs on the internet.

                    • Immortal600