Circular reasoning with climate models

By |2018-03-01T14:23:18+00:00March 1st, 2018|Climate|366 Comments

Climate models play a central role in the attribution of global warming or climate change to human causes. The standard argument takes the following form: “We can get the model to do X, using human causes, but not without them, so human causes must be the cause of X.” A little digging reveals that this is actually a circular argument, because the models are set up in such a way that human causes are the only way to get change.

The finding is that humans are the cause of global warming and climate change is actually the assumption going in. This is circular reasoning personified, namely conclude what you first assume.

This circularity can be clearly seen in what many consider the most authoritative scientific report on climate change going, although it is actually just the most popular alarmist report. We are talking about the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), of the latest assessment report (AR5), of the heavily politicized UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their 29 page AR5 SPM is available here.

The “smoking gun” of circularity lies in just two figures, specifically Figures 5 and 6.

First look at Figure 5 on page 14. It is a bit technical, but as the caption says in the first line, these are “the main drivers of climate change” (according to the IPCC that is). There are just eleven of these main drivers, each with a colorful horizontal bar, although some are broken down into components.

The length of each bar represents the IPCC’s best guess at how much each driver has done since 1750 (and through 2011), which they call a “forcing.” So any observed climate changes over that 261 year period must be due to these drivers and this is just what the climate models assume.

In fact the modelers are required to assume it if they want to feed their results into the IPCC assessment. About 100 major climate models are used to do this modeling, in a huge coordinated effort that takes several years to pull off. That effort is coordinated by the US Department of Energy.

The smoking gun begins with the fact that 10 of these 11 drivers are from human causes. The only one that is natural is changes in solar energy input (called “irradiance”) and that bar is so small that it basically does not count. In fact you can barely see it in the figure.

So for all practical purposes, the IPCC assumes that all of the drivers of climate change are human caused. There are many other drivers that are discussed in the scientific literature but they are simply ignored, here and in the models.

Obviously, if all the drivers of climate change are human caused, then all the observed changes must also be caused by humans. And this is just what we see in Figure 6, on page 18.

This figure shows 18 separate little pictures. Each picture shows three things:

(1) An observed climate change.

(2) What the model output looks like without human forcing.

(3) What the model output looks like with human forcing.

Given that the only significant forcing allowed is human, it is no surprise that the model output only matches the observations when human forcing is included. How could it be otherwise? The 18 model outputs without human forcing do not change, indeed they cannot change, because no natural drivers are allowed.

But rather than seeing that this result simply follows from the initial assumptions, the IPCC amazingly claims that it proves that human are the sole cause of climate change. It proves nothing of the sort and this completes the smoking gun of circularity.

The simplicity of this fallacy is stunning. If you assume that only humans can cause climate change then of course it follows that all climate change is caused by humans. But this is just true by assumption, not by science. The reasoning is perfectly circular.

A legitimate assessment of the science would consider the many other drivers that are presently under consideration. Legitimate scientific modeling would explore these drivers, to see what contribution they may be making to the observed climate changes.

Unfortunately neither the IPCC nor the extensive, expensive modeling that is done to support it is legitimate. That the US Department of Energy is at the center of all this politicized non-science is especially bad and needs to change.

As it is, all of this modeling is just junk, because it assumes a false answer going in. There is no such thing as science by assumption. If the models are not going to do science then they should not be running.

366 Comments

  1. cgs March 1, 2018 at 6:29 PM

    Dr. Wojick,

    I’m interested. Can you name one or two natural forcings that you don’t think are found in present day climate models, like those used at NASA GISS?

    Thanks.

    • Brin Jenkins March 2, 2018 at 4:51 AM

      Does this address the modeller’s initial assumption that man is responsible?

      • cgs March 2, 2018 at 7:50 AM

        Sorry, not sure I understand. Dr. Wojick makes the statement:

        A legitimate assessment of the science would consider the many other drivers that are presently under consideration.

        But he does not state what these other drivers are. I’m simply asking him to tell me one or two. I don’t wish to guess at what he means.

        • Brin Jenkins March 2, 2018 at 8:35 AM

          OK and sorry, I now understand. Science should be open minded and starting from the place where you might like to be is a bias. The pro C02 warming group start by ignoring this, and the BBC started its policy of only presenting one side around the turn of the century so many now going to college have only ever heard this bias. Gravity perhaps is ignored, as is the shape of the planet when considering what may happen to secondary infra red radiation from C02 molecules. Also the minute contribution by man to Global C02 which in total is around 400 parts per million.

          C02 is released by heat, and to see it suddenly changed from the effect of heating to being a cause or a driving force seems illogical.

          This is now not even considered as politicly adjusted data is fed into the simulations. Just as I perceive matters of course. I too look fwd to further enlightenment.

          • cgs March 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM

            I appreciate the reply.

            Dr. Wojick, I still hope that you will reply as well.

            • Robert March 2, 2018 at 1:38 PM

              Good chance he won’t. .. I’m still waiting – two days now -http://www.cfact.org/2018/02/23/revenue-neutral-nonsense/#comment-3780348280

              • David Wojick March 2, 2018 at 1:51 PM

                Already answered above.

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 1:49 PM

            ..”C02 is released by heat,”

            And coal plants, internal combustion engines…….?

            • CB March 2, 2018 at 9:17 PM

              “And coal plants, internal combustion engines…….?”

              Products sold by the companies funding CFACT?

              It’s not difficult to see the conflict of interest, right?

              “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

            • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 5:45 AM

              Your point being what? You start from the premise that CO2 is bad. We would die without it, its essential for all life including us and is at 400 parts per million. at less that 180 parts plants die. take 2500 ping pong balls and paint one black. float them on a swimming pool and try to find the black one. Mans C02 contribution is not even one whole ball just a small fraction and you really think we make any difference?

              Now can you explain any mechanism showing the infra red photon being reradiated from the C02 molecule being a driving force for heating?

              We understand science but lack your faith in warming theories, lets argue science and not preach faith.

              • Robert March 4, 2018 at 11:15 AM

                Wow, nice run on list of logical fallacies / denialist blog talking points.

                Photosynthesis and GHG do both involve co2, but from there on your conflation breaks down.

                “..lack your faith in warming theories..”

          • Grumnut1 March 2, 2018 at 6:10 PM

            “C02 is released by heat, and to see it suddenly changed from the effect of heating to being a cause or a driving force seems illogical.”
            Do you mean the Caillon et Al paper of the Vostok ice cores, that says the opposite to what you are claiming?
            It CLEARLY states that CO2 rises first, then temperature (in this case, deglaciation) follows by about 800 years.
            Why do you think it says what you think it says?
            Please provide the example.

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 7:59 PM

              “Do you mean the Caillon et Al paper of the Vostok ice cores, that says the opposite to what you are claiming? It CLEARLY states that CO2 rises first first, then temperature (in this case declaciation) follows by about 800 years.”
              You have it backwards. Caillon clearly states that CO2 lags temperature change. Lag means comes after.

              Here are the clear words quoted from the abstract of Caillon’s paper that confirm you are wrong:

              “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years” – Caillon(2003) ‘Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Temrination III’

              • Grumnut1 March 2, 2018 at 8:20 PM

                …and read back to me please what it says about deglaciation.
                I’ll wait….

                • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:27 PM

                  “and read back to me please what it says about deglaciation”
                  “CO2 increase LAGGED Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”
                  Get it yet?

                  • Grumnut1 March 2, 2018 at 8:29 PM

                    No. What it ACTUALLY says.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:31 PM

                      “No. What it ACTUALLY says.”
                      I have quoted what it ACTUALLY says TWICE.
                      Your continued denial of reality only exposes you as a duped cult fanatic. Sad.

                    • Grumnut1 March 2, 2018 at 8:53 PM

                      You can do better than that. The actual wording about deglaciation please.
                      I have asked nicely now.
                      Twice.
                      This is even a correction on what you claim he states about the Termination III.
                      And this was not even what I was meaning, but here you go.

                      “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.”

                      Now answer the question I actually asked.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:43 PM

                      Sorry, your quote does NOT support your claim: Grumnut1: “It CLEARLY states that CO2 rises first, then temperature (in this case, deglaciation) follows by about 800 years.”

                      It is just an empirical evidence free claim. It does not support your claim because it does not clearly state that CO2 rises first and temperature rises 800 years later.

                      In fact, the paper’s statement “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 change that is first felt in the atmosphere.” actually admits that ocean temperature increase causes CO2 outgassing from the oceans. And it is ridiculous to claim that it takes 800 years for CO2 to outgas from the ocean. Care to cite any peer reviewed science that shows a physical mechanism for an 800 year delay in ocean CO2 outgassing when ocean temperature increases?

                      In fact, CO2 outgassing takes place almost immediately with temperature change, as observed in this empirical data showing sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b567a1366f5275a87214374ea62561e19a82dc649f9b56f54717befcb5b5bc3c.png?w=600&h=318&w=600&h=318

                      This graph shows that temperature changes first, and then CO2 changes after the temperature changes, in both the up and down direction. A cause must happen before the effect. you have the cause and effect reversed.

                    • Grumnut1 March 2, 2018 at 10:58 PM

                      You haven’t bothered to answer my question.
                      I even had to answer your one for you that you got wrong.
                      What’s wrong with you?
                      “actually admits that ocean temperature increase causes CO2 outgassing from the oceans”
                      “And it is ridiculous to claim that it takes 800 years for CO2 to outgas from the ocean”
                      Take it up with the peer reviewed guy who you think claims the opposite.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:43 AM

                      “You haven’t bothered to answer my question”
                      There is no answer, because you just made up your claim that Caillon “CLEARLY states that CO2 rises first, then temperature (in this case, deglaciation) by 800 years”, as I’ve proven by quoting directly from Caillon(2003).

                      Poor Grumnut1, another discredited believer in the false CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion that denies reality and will never admit that you are wrong. Sad.

                    • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 3:06 AM

                      Really?
                      So you haven’t read his paper?
                      The one you quote from?
                      This is what you are supposed to answer with.
                      Repeat 80000 times.
                      ” 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).”

                      The degalciation they already had the time-line to.
                      Sorry.
                      So. he states.
                      CO2 rise first.
                      Deglaciation 600 – 800 years later.
                      Make that 1,000,000 times.
                      Then get back to me.
                      I REALLY await your reply.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 8:22 AM

                      Sorry Grumnut, despite Caillon’s speculations, the Vostok Antarctic ice cores give zero evidence of Northern hemisphere temperature/CO2 increase timing, because there is zero evidence of NH CO2 levels or NH temperatures in the Vostok Antarctic ice cores. There is only evidence of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 levels. To understand NH CO2 increase/temperature change, you would need NH ice cores. Caillon provides ZERO data of NH ice cores.

                      “So he states. CO2 rise first. Deglaciation 600 – 800 years later.”
                      Poor Grumnut, no matter how many times you repeat your lie, it will never change the fact that Caillon did not state that, proven by your inability to quote where he did. What you quoted was pure speculation about the NH, since there was zero NH data in Caillon’s paper.
                      As I have quoted to you, he explicitly stated that CO2 rise happened 800 ± 200 years after the temperature rise:
                      “CO2 increase LAGGED Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”

                      Sad that you are unable to understand language and unable to comprehend science.

                    • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 2:38 PM

                      The timing of what happened in the Northern hemisphere is not the topic of the Vostok ice cores paper. It doesn’t concern itself with that at all. The fact you think it should shows the paucity of your understanding.
                      Are you saying no one knew ANYTHING about what happened in the northern hemisphere and when?
                      IS THAT YOUR ASSERTION?
                      Also, he clearly states that the introduction of anthropogenic CO2 causes the opposite mechanism to occur.
                      Or are you disputing that too?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM

                      Wow, your clown dancing just gets greater and greater. Hilarious.

                      “The timing of what happened in the Northern hemisphere is not the topic of hte Vostok ice cores paper. It doesn’t concern itself with that at all.”

                      So why did you quote the portion that mentioned the NH and why did you argue that Caillon stated that CO2 rise preceded temperature change, when Caillon explicitly stated the opposite:

                      “CO2 increase LAGGED Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years” – Caillon(2003)

                      I accept your admission of defeat, and admission that Caillon explicitly states that CO2 change happened AFTER temperature change.

                      Dance on, clown.

                    • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 3:18 PM

                      You really have shown your paucity of understanding.

                      So this statement means nothing then
                      “..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.”

                      And why do you think a study of Antartic ice core samples should be a study of Arctic Ice Core samples.
                      Wouldn’t that be in the title somewhere?
                      Did he catch the wrong flight perhaps.

                      How much do you know about scientific papers if you think that’s the case?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 6:08 PM

                      “You really have shown your paucity of understanding”
                      You certainly are good at projection. You are the one who has demonstrated a paucity of understanding the fact that ice cores in Antarctica are NOT empirical evidence for the timing of temperature change and CO2 change in the NH.

                      “So this statement …”
                      That statement is not empirical evidence of the timing of temperature change and CO2 change in the NH or anywhere else. It’s a baseless, evidence-free claim which just repeats your false climate cult dogma about “anthropogenic influence”. I’ve asked you dozens and dozens of times for empirical evidence that CO2 precedes temperature change and you have provided none.

                      I’ve provided you Caillion(2003) which explicitly states that the ice core data shows that CO2 change lagged temperature change by ~800 years.

                      I’ve shown you the short term data from the present that empirically shows that temperature changes first and that CO2 change happens later.

                      I’ve cited and quoted peer reviewed science, Humlum(2013) which empirically shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes from the numerous different temperature records.

                      Yet you delusionally cling to your false climate cult dogma that CO2 increases cause temperature increase

                      “And why do you think a study of Antartic[sic] ice core samples should be a study of Arctic Ice Core samples”
                      I don’t. YOU do, since you posted:

                      Grumnut1: “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)” Now, since I pointed out your error you are backing away from your previous statement and are projecting your error onto me. That’s dishonest.

                      Amazing that you drone on and on even after I’ve totally debunked your original claim:
                      Grumnut1: “Do you mean the Caillon et Al paper of the Vostok ice cores … It CLEARLY states that CO2 rises first first, then temperature (in this case declaciation) follows by about 800 years.”
                      I’ve shown that Caillon(2003) says no such thing. And you have NOT backed up your false claim with any empirical evidence. You only post unfounded CLAIMS of your climate cult dogmas.

                      Your comments are so incoherent, so dishonest, display so much ignorance and lack of reasoning, I’m beginning to think that you are a poorly programmed bot.

                    • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 6:10 PM

                      “I’ve provided you Caillion(2003) which explicitly states that the ice core data shows that CO2 change lagged temperature change by ~800 years.”

                      Yes.
                      Now explain why.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 6:35 PM

                      “Yes.”
                      Thanks for again admitting you were wrong.

                    • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 6:50 PM

                      No wuckkers.

            • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 4:09 AM

              I have just shown the simple experiment that supports my statement, Heating water releases C02. I read the papers on core samples and understood the temperature rose first and C02 afterwards. A cause and its effect may not be interchanged.

              • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 6:44 AM

                So you agree with the Caillon et Al paper of the Vostok ice cores then?

                • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM

                  Not too bright to draw a conclusion about the 800 ± 200 years lag in CO2 rise after temperature change from a real time experiment that shows gas release from water that takes only minutes to preform. But then, no surprise, since you’ve amply displayed that you don’t understand science.

                  • Grumnut1 March 3, 2018 at 10:14 AM

                    You didn’t answer the question.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 10:48 AM

                      LOL!

          • 9.8m/ss March 2, 2018 at 8:36 PM

            “CO2 is released by heat”
            Really? The only way I can make sense of that statement is you are talking about the oceans outgassing dissolved CO2 as they warm. But the oceans are absorbing CO2 these days. Do you have a citation?

            • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 4:01 AM

              Easy to do at home, take two glasses of water from the tap and put one in the fridge the other a warm place like a sunny window ledge. Within a few mins we see bubbles forming on the inside of the warming glass, check the other glass in the fridge and there are no bubbles.

              What have we observed suggests cold water retains gas and warm water expels it. The cause is heat and effect is gas released. read up on the properties of gases this and confirms the statement that I made.

              • 9.8m/ss March 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM

                You get bubbles in the glass because the partial pressure of the dissolved gas in the water is higher than the atmospheric pressure of the water in the glass. Not because “heat releases” it. That’s not the case with CO2 and the ocean. Which is why the ocean is absorbing about half of manmade CO2 emissions today. The ocean is not outgassing CO2.

                • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 1:36 PM

                  “The ocean is not outgassing CO2.”
                  Wow, seldom have I seen such science denial. Denying fundamental science that even the IPCC accepts that the oceans are constantly outgassing CO2, exposes you as being scientifically illiterate. Sad.

                  Care to explain how the oceans release ~90 PgC/yr of CO2 into the atmosphere if it’s not by outgassing?

                  Go ahead and explain the physical mechanism of how your magic gas, CO2, accomplishes the feat of escaping from the ocean if it’s not from outgassing.

    • David Wojick March 2, 2018 at 12:44 PM

      Sure cgs; two of the primary classes of natural drivers are indirect solar effects and ocean circulation changes.

      On the solar side there are a number of hypotheses, such as Svensmark’s, plus a large literature on the prospects for global cooling. On the ocean side a prime case is that of so-called abrupt events, where it is thought that several degrees of warming happened quickly due to an ocean circulation change. Modern warming could be a mild case of this.

      More generally there are the various hypotheses regarding the Little Ice Age and the emergence therefrom. There are also feedback cases like Lindzen’s iris.

      Also, I have pointed out here that the only warming in the satellite record seems to be due to the giant El Nino cycle:
      http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/.

      There a plenty of natural drivers and forcings that the models could be exploring but they choose not to, for largely political reasons.

      • Robert March 2, 2018 at 1:47 PM

        Asked earlier, but no response, so asked again…

        Why the reliance on only one set of data?
        “..only warming in the satellite record …”

        If you think the other sets are in error, your justification needs to include the discussion of why you think that.

        • David Wojick March 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM

          Already answered last May, as you well know:
          http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 1:59 PM

            Oh, sorry, I was expecting something published in the body of scientific literature….

            But a self-reference …….

            • CB March 2, 2018 at 2:01 PM

              “But a self-reference …….”

              David says David says David says…

            • David Wojick March 2, 2018 at 2:32 PM

              Sorry but this is my own research and I do not use academic journals.

              • Robert March 2, 2018 at 2:39 PM

                “…this is my own research ….”
                Yeah, that’s evident…

                “.. I do not use academic journals.”
                What is your rationale for not doing so?

                • David Wojick March 2, 2018 at 3:53 PM

                  They take years to get published and they are peer reviewed by alarmists like you, so a waste of time.

                • soonerorlater March 2, 2018 at 7:03 PM

                  Perhaps he actually understands the science.

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 7:40 PM

                    Yeah, that’s it. All the best climate scientists only publish on their own blogs….
                    And claim Anthropogenic Climate Change is a communist plot

                    “The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2. ”
                    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3777011725

                    The writer’s science-

                    “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

                    “That it has captured all of the liberal institutions I do not dispute.”
                    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3763211995

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

                    “It is true that I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

                    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775564268

                    “If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science.”
                    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775553140

                    David Wojick, c fact scientist and attemptor at getting people to pay him to develop a c fact approved science curriculum

                    Might want to consider what sort of lens promotes delusional and paranoid thinking like that.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 7:48 PM

                      Poor Robert, still angry that your climate cult religion is crashing and burning. Two decades, 40% of all the human CO2 ever produced released into the atmosphere and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only a natural El Nino which released stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere has caused any increase in temperature trend over those 2 decades.

                      Wojick’s comments are accurate, confirmed by the inability of any of you climate cult religionists to provide any empirical evidence empirically showing that climate warming has been caused primarily by humans.

                    • Robert March 2, 2018 at 7:57 PM

                      “..crashing and burning…”
                      Evidence?

                      Gone missing…
                      What a surprise……

                      “climate cult religionists”

                      Here is your leader”s attribution:

                      “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

                      “That it has captured all of the liberal institutions I do not dispute.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3763211995

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

                      “If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775553140

                      David Wojick, c fact scientist and attemptor at getting people to pay him to develop a c fact approved science curriculum

                      Might want to consider what sort of lens promotes delusional and paranoid thinking like that.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:09 PM

                      Yep, as always, you can prove zero empirical science to support your false climate cult religion.

                      Yes, Wojick’s statements are correct.

                      You might want to base your beliefs on real science, not on pseudoscience of your climate cult religion.

              • Robert March 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM

                Your “own research” seems to be invoking “.. Svensmark’s, plus a large literature..”. Are we to then assume none of that is “.. peer reviewed by alarmists ..”?

                https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/circular_reasoning_with_climate_models/#comment-3783963157

                https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/circular_reasoning_with_climate_models/#comment-3784270776

                C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                Currency: the timeliness of the information
                When was the information published or posted?
                Has the information been revised or updated?
                Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                Are the links functional?

                Relevance:
                the importance of the information for your needs
                Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                Who is the intended audience?
                Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?

                Authority: the source of the information
                Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given? What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source? examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government), .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)

                Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content
                Where does the information come from?
                Is the information supported by evidence?
                Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?

                Purpose: the reason the information exists
                What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

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

      • cgs March 2, 2018 at 3:02 PM

        Thank you for the reply.

        So the three items that are absolutely referenced here are:

        Cosmic rays,
        Abrupt climate change, and
        Iris theory.

        If this is wrong, please let me know. Otherwise no need to reply unless you want to add to your comment. I appreciate it.

      • cgs March 3, 2018 at 8:32 AM

        So thank you again for your response. I have had a chance to do some digging with regards to the iris effect and abrupt climate change modeling. In no way is this meant to be exhaustive and I am in no position to comment on the quality of the work. But I think what I have found relates to your post.

        I would first like to make a minor observation. Your post asserts that there are natural forcings that are not regarded in current climate models. But, from what I understand, the iris effect is not a forcing, it is a feedback. And abrupt climate change, to my perhaps naïve understanding, is also closely related to feedbacks causing the climate change much faster than expected from an analysis of the current drivers – I don’t think it is the “name” of a forcing or climate driver either.

        With regards to the Iris effect, I have found that there was a very recent attempt to model it:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2414

        The paper is not freely available, but an overview is here:

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/the-return-of-the-iris-effect/

        For abrupt climate change, I found two interesting papers by the same author, a professor Sybren Drijfhout. In the first, he examines the CMIP5 models for examples of abrupt climate change:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/E5777

        In the second, he creates one himself with a climate model:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19713

        Now, I emphasize again that I do not pretend to examine the quality of the work in these papers.

        But if the point of your essay is that the CMIP5 models do not consider feedback from the Iris effect, nor do they try to purposely attempt to model abrupt climate change through natural forcings, then you are probably correct. I’m not sure exactly when CMIP5 started and furthermore, when construction of the models would have to have been started if you wanted to participate in that phase, but my guess is that with regards to the Iris effect, it was perhaps too early. The abstract in the paper above seems to indicate that models could be improved by the addition of something like an Iris effect and perhaps we’ll see that.

        With regards to examining the possibility of abrupt climate change through natural drivers being responsible for our current warming, it is true, I believe, to simply say that that is not the purpose of the coupled model intercomparison project. Its focus, to my understanding, is to examine the climate response to GHG forcing.
        Furthermore, since abrupt climate change results from feedbacks, the first paper by professor Drijfhout shows that events that fit the definition of abrupt events are seen in CMIP5 runs.

        And to the point of exploring whether our current warming is an example of abrupt climate change that is only due to natural forcings seems unrealistic since we know GHGs are a climate driver and thus any reasonable model must include them.

        But rather than the narrow point regarding CMIP5 models, if your post was attempting to make a broader point that no one is attempting to model these effects and understand how they perhaps relate to our current situation, then that is obviously wrong.

        Thank you for your time.

      • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 12:20 PM

        Trenberth’s “missing heat” – aka, the pause – was explained away as, I believe, Pacific winds stacking up warm water, which, due to the weight, submerged, bringing the heat to the deeper ocean, requesting it from the atmosphere, producing the observed pause.

        Obviously the reverse can happen. The oceans act as a heat sink, Circulation changes could happen that stagnate that heat sink, perhaps by leaving warm water on the surface, lessening the ocean’s tempering of the atmospheric and surface temperature, causing the apparent rise in surface and atmospheric temperature, without an external cause.

  2. Robert March 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM

    Starting w a strawman is hardly ever a winning strategy. ..

    Pesky problem that consilience…….

    Acceleration of phenological advance and warming with latitude over the past century
    Eric Post, Byron A. Steinman & Michael E. Mann

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22258-0

    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 7:27 PM

      “Starting w a strawman is hardly ever a winning strategy”
      Since Wojick didn’t use any strawman, your starting with a lie is a losing strategy.

      And citing a paper that shows no human causation of climate warming is a losing strategy to defend your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.

      • Robert March 2, 2018 at 7:53 PM

        Read the first sentence of the blog post.

        Thank you for the demonstration of the lack of understanding of the meaning of the word consilience.

        And, ICYMI

        Cook’s
        Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors
        at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f

        And expanded on at
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/a-challenge-for-my-readers/

        • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:05 PM

          “Read the first sentence of the blog post”
          I did. NO strawman there. Thank you for confimring your dishonesty and ignorance.

          “Cooks’ …’
          Hahaha. No wonder you are so wrong on climate science, you get your climate pseudoscience from a CARTOONIST who writes pal reviewed rubbish and runs a dishonest climate cult propaganda website. Hahahaha

          “About Skeptical Science – This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist …” – http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

          And the dishonest practices of changing, deleting, and misrepresenting comments on the website are documented here: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 , bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ , bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP , bit.ly/1fjxZNz

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:22 PM

            Note your effort at a the logical fallacy Attack the Messenger relies on using a archive url.
            Why not cite a current bio?

            https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8488-6766

            Or:
            About John Cook
            Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

            In 2013, he lead-authored an award-winning paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course on climate science denial with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (see a full list of his scholarly publications).

            https://skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

            So, thanks for letting me again demonstrate to the world how you posting behavior doesn’t meet minimal levels of intellectual rigor, integrity, or honesty.

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:23 PM

              Defending a cartoonist as a valid source for climate science, and STILL no empirical evidence to support your climate cult religion.

              Thanks for once again proving that you have no empirical science to support your climate alamrism religion.

          • 9.8m/ss March 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM

            Calling Professor Cook a cartoonist is like calling Albert Einstein a patent clerk.

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:29 PM

              “Calling Professor Cook…”
              HAHAHAHAHA!

            • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM

              except that Einstein started out as a patent clerk, and Cook finished as a cartoonist and a laughing stock.
              Cook is learn-ed, schooled … indoctrinated. He needs to be educated: Mark Twain’s quip, “Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned.”

              Happer: “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem, the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed.” Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/30/donald-trumps-potential-science-adviser-believes-co2-good-us/

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:46 AM

                “except that Einstein started out as a patent clerk, and Cook finished as a cartoonist and a laughing stock.”

                Cook was a cartoonist before his website began its work, before he published several peer-reviewed papers, before he co-authored two university textbooks on climate change, before he earned his PhD on the psychology of science denial, before he was appointed a professor in the climate research program at George Mason University.

                It is amazing how you think a ten-year old, self-effacing bio, that is archive for you by the hacker Poptek is more relevant than his current one.

                He is only a laughing stock among you climate science deniers.WUWT, Climate Depot, and Poptek exist to tell you which people are to be your laughing stocks. Oddly, they seem to correlate to anyone who dares to criticizes the “skeptic” point of view.

                Happer has no expertise, no peer-reviewed publications in climate research. Pretending that his Nobel Prize conferred upon him such expertise is a textbook fallacious “appeal to authority.”

                PhD programs are hardly “indoctrination.”

            • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 9:39 PM

              Putting Cook in a comment including Einstein is like including a mountain in a discussion on a pebble !
              .
              Cook is a cartoonist turned psychologist . In a “Climate Communications ” school .
              .
              Tell us , any PhD s offered in Physics Communication ? Chemistry Communication ? Geology Communication ?
              .
              Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:56 AM

                So, you don’t think scientists have a right to fight back against the misinformation put out by people like Morano and Delingpole?

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:29 PM

            I don’t click on obscured urls, so, sorry.
            Wonder why the obscured urls?
            For ~ the same number of steps, you could have cited the titles, url or a selected quote and url….

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:35 PM

              “Wonder why the obscurred urls”
              Not obscured, but shortened, from YT’s comment character limitations.

              But good plan not to be exposed to the dishonesty of your beloved self-described cartoonist, who admits that he is NOT a climatologist or a scientist. It would cause so much cognitive dissonance that you might harm yourself.

              And you still can’t cite any peer reviewed empirical science to support your climate cult religion beliefs. Sad.

              • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:55 PM

                “…YT’s comment character limitations.”

                Oh? Where?

                Funny how I’ve never seen any posts discussing this…
                Or truncated posts.

                Or virtually no one else using bitly

                • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM

                  “Oh? Where?”
                  Prior to Google buying YT and screwing up the commenting system, there was a 500 character limit for a comment, so it was common to use shortened URLs. Back about 10 years ago, probably before you were old enough to use a computer and were brainwashed on global warming, so you don’t know.

                  And your continued inability to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the cause of the late 20th century warming is noted.

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 10:08 PM

                    Um, it is not ten years ago now, we’re on disqus, and again, no supporting evidence.

                    And the personal attacks start as a rebuttal ratheran linking to evidence…
                    Gee where have we seen that behavior before….?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 10:22 PM

                      Poor Robert, the duped climate cult fanatic who believes in pseudoscience even though you can provide ZERO peer reviewed empirical science that supports your false climate cult religious beliefs, so he makes a fool out of himself by obfuscating with handwaving clown dances. Sad.

                      Since you don’t like shortened URL’s, here are the full ones that expose the corrupt and dishonest behavior of John Cook’s propaganda climate cult religion blog:
                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-censorship-of-poptech.html
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/12/the-cook-lewandowsky-social-internet-link/
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%E2%80%93-rewriting-history/
                      https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/#more-1822
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/22/over-cooked-or-well-done/
                      https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/my-response-to-the-skeptical-science-post-one-sided-skepticism/
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/05/more-shameless-conspiracy-theory-from-the-skeptical-science-smear-quest-team/
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/25/skeptical-science-gets-romm-bombed/
                      https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
                      http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html
                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/12/pielke-sr-on-skeptical-sciences-attacks-on-spencer-and-christy/
                      https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/secret-skepticalscience/

                      There you go. Documented evidence of Cook’s dishonesty. No wonder he was offered an academic position in the fraudulent, corrupt climate cult academea. He fits right in.

                      And your continued inability to cite a single peer rievewed paper that empirically shows anthropogenic cO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming is still noted. Poor duped fool.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 7:50 AM

                      Funny how all your sources are science-denial blogs.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:17 AM

                      Funny how you resort to ad hom attacks of the sources.
                      Funny how you can’t refute the factual real world examples of the dishonest practices of Cook’s climate cult propaganda blog.
                      Funny how you deny reality.
                      Funny how devoted you are to your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion even though there is no empirical evidence showing it is true.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 3:32 PM

                      Funny how the person whining about “ad hom attacks of the sources” is the person lobbing fallacious ad hom attacks on John Cook, Michael Mann, and others.

                      Did it never occur to you why neither WUWT nor Poptek is aimed at a political/conservative/”skeptic” audience rather than at an audience of expert scientists and serious science students?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 4:57 PM

                      Funny how you ad hom attack a source which publishes factual accounts of dishonest and corrupt practices and that overlook the dishonesty and corruption practiced by your climate cult, like Peter Gleick’s identity theft in order to steal private documents. Just shows that you are a member of a false cult.

                      Funny how you are a believer in a false CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion even though there is no peer reviewed empirical science that shows it is true.

                      Did it ever occur to you that you aren’t doing science, but that you are doing religion, belief, in spite of the fact that the empirical evidence shows that global warming is still natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

                      You’re handwaving clown dance is hilarious. Too bad you can’t cite any peer reviewed science that empirically supports your climate cult religion.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 5:02 PM

                      Yet you are the one who seems to be claiming that the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate experts are either lying or incompetent and that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect from CO2, and that a mountain of peer-reviewed research simply doesn’t exist.

                      Claiming that WUWT, CFACT or Poptek is a “factual” source is laughable and moronic.

                      If they are so credible, according to you, then why do their authors not publish more in the peer-reviewed literature?

                      The only way to refute science is with better science, and that has to be submitted for fact-checking and the rigors of analysis.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:26 PM

                      The groupthinking peddlers of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion prove themselves to be either lying, incompetent or scammers even if they are scientists, since they can’t support their climate alarmism beliefs with any empirical science.

                      “Claiming that WUWT, CFACT or Poptek is a “factual” source is laughable and moronic.”
                      Nice projection on the “moronic” thing. What’s moronic is to claim that anything I’ve cited from those sources is not factual, even though you are unable to point out a single thing that was factually incorrect.

                      Since you once again just reply with a fallacious comment with no empirical evidence to support it, you expose yourself as a fanatical climate cult zealot who is defending your cherished climate alarmism religion with jihadist zeal just as Dr. Lindzen said members of your religion do. Thanks for confirming that he was spot on with his comment.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 5:32 PM

                      So, you never noticed that neither WUWT, CFACT, nor Poptek is aimed at the expert scientific community or serious students of science?

                      A fallacious ad hominem attack is when you try to discredit someone on the basis of something that is irrelevant to the subject at hand–kind of like your attacks on John Cook or Skeptical Science.

                      It is not even an ad hominem attack to point out that Lindzen is an extreme outlier who retired from MIT and now works for conservative advocacy and fossil fuel propaganda groups like Cato and Heartland or that Happer is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and possesses no specific expertise–or peer-reviewed papers–in climate research.

                      You really don’t seem to know how anything works. You also seem very confused about the distinction between science and religion and truck only in simple-minded stereotypes and–yes–fallacious ad hominem attacks on anyone who holds a different view on the climate than you do.

                      You are in the minority position, by far, and obviously a crank.

                      Are you as skeptical of evolutionary biology as you are of mainstream climate science? This is, if you think about it, quite a relevant question.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:03 PM

                      Another comment with fallacious arguments and devoid of empirical science that supports your climate alarmist beliefs. Sad.

                      “You are in the minority position, by far, and obviously a crahk.”
                      I’m no crank. Just a scientist who bases my understanding on empirical data, real science. My position is supported with empirical real world data, while yours is not. That makes mine correct, and real science, and makes yours wrong and pseudoscience.

                      It’s a shame that you don’t understand how science is done. “Minority position” is irrelevant. Empirical data is relevant, and that supports my correct understanding of the climate system. I have cited and quoted that peer reviewed science here, https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/#comment-3786114870 . I notice that you have not been able to refute it.

                      Your wrong understanding is not supported by empirical data which makes it purely BELIEF even when it is contrary to the real world empirical data, which puts it in the realm of religion, NOT science.

                      The fact that you can’t cite and quote any empirical science that shows humans have been the primary cause of global warming, as your climate amarmism belief system claims, shows that I am correct and that you are wrong.
                      It’s obvious from your comments that this makes you very angry. But that’s reality. It’s a shame that you deny reality. But then most members of your climate cult religion deny reality.

                    • Grumnut1 March 4, 2018 at 10:18 PM

                      This is an important question.
                      Did it never occur to you why neither WUWT nor Poptek not aimed at an audience of expert scientists and serious science students?
                      Surely, considering it’s subject matter, that’s who it should be trying to engage.
                      Why aim your content at people who already feel there is something dodgy about the science.
                      That will only convince people who think there is something dodgy about the science.
                      Where are the articles containing almost unimplementable scientific language?
                      The kind that science students read?
                      The kind of articles that science students would at least consider?

              • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:58 PM

                Funny how who you are calling a cartoonist is holding an academic position and publishing in his area.

                You.
                Making unsupported claims on a political opinion blog and looking for someone who will argue basic science.

                Again.

                • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM

                  “holding an academic position and publishing in his area”

                  John Cook: “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist … I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler” – http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

                  The fact that a dishonest blogger who is not a climatologist or scientist holds an academic position in your climate cult religion confirms that it is a fraud/scam/hoax/lie.

                  And your continued handwaving clown dance of obfuscation because of your inability to cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming is duly noted.

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 10:10 PM

                    I’ll go with current information.
                    Thanks for showing us your best support is a transparent Attack the Messenger logical fallacy.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 10:26 PM

                      Poor Robert, continuing your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation.
                      Thanks for once again showing us that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming as your climate cult religion claims.

                      The peer reviewed science shows that the late 20th century warming was natural, just as every climate warming in history has been. Here is peer reviewed science that shows the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by between 2.7W/m² and 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. CO2 forcing increased by only ~1/10th that much during the same time period. Here’s that peer reviewed science:

                      “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

                  • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 7:48 AM

                    So, you think that a screen grab from over a decade ago invalidates everything Cook has done since.

                    Weird.

                  • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 7:49 AM

                    Consider the possibility that Cook holds an academic position because he has actually done something to earn it in the 10 years since when that screen grab was first “grabbed.”

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:17 AM

                      Hahaha. John Cook’s own behavior exposes himself as a total JOKE: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lbw90JPZq6Q/U3B9roVxLAI/AAAAAAAABJ4/swCjiaMzqFk/s1600/Herr+Cook.gif

                      And his own self-published bio shows that he has NO qualifications to be an academic in climate change: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y20HAVkDLGI/U3CBOi_mebI/AAAAAAAABKM/04qM-uzbrDs/s1600/Cook+SEV.gif
                      & http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YYVrr8BJIj4/U3CA_pKUGjI/AAAAAAAABKE/o8O69K9MHng/s1600/Cook+Cartoonist.gif

                      But then, I guess being a “cartoonist, professional scrawler and web programmer” and having watched Al Gore’s discredited and debunked ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ propaganda flick are all the credentials needed to be an academic expert who peddles your rubbish pseudoscience CatastrohpicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 3:31 PM

                      A photoshopped picture hacked from his computer network by Poptek over 10 years ago.
                      There is also one with his face photoshopped onto the body of Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West. He was making inside jokes poking fun at the names he was being called (aka “climate Nazi”) by the likes of you.

                      He actually didn’t post this on his “blog,” contrary to Poptek’s claims.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM

                      The fact that you can’t cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of any global warming, and that you defend and are a follower of a lunatic nutcase cartoonist who dresses up like a German SS officer and that you think this and being a cartoonist, a professional scrawler who has watched Gore’s propaganda flick qualifies him as an academic in your climate cult religion is your problem and confirms that your are a part of a cult religion, as eminent scientists recognize:

                      “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.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 5:05 PM

                      This comment is spam (on your part). I am beginning to see why James Owens calls you “RealOldRavingLunatic”

                      Cook doesn’t “dress up like a German SS officer.” That is an obviously Photoshopped, responding to his being called a “climate Nazi,” The fact that you refuse to recognize anything the fellow has done or accomplished in the intervening 10 years is a sign of idiocy.

                      John Cook qualifies as an academic because he earned a PhD. The topic of his PhD was the psychology of science denial. He has also co-authored two university climate change textbooks, and the website he founded (unlike CFACT or WUWT or Poptek) is widely used as an educational resource by university science departments the world over.

                      None of his former MIT colleagues agrees with Lindzen, who has made many statements that are simply incorrect. (He works for the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute now, not MIT; neither is a scientific organization).

                      Will Happer has no specific expertise in climate studies and has been in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:20 PM

                      “This comment is spam (on your part)”

                      Wrong. It is the accurate quote of emeritus professors who recognize that you are peddling cult religion, not science.

                      Your comment is just spam because it refutes nothing that the emeritus professors that I quoted said. It merely ad hom attacks them.

                      Just like your fellow climate cultist, you once again FAIL to cite any peer reviewed empirical science that shows humans have been the primary cause of any global warming.

                      You are your fellow climate cultists are a pathetic lot. But them most delusional, duped doomsday cult fanatics are.

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:31 PM

            Funny how IPCC reports have so many chapters besides a chapter on models….
            “I did. NO strawman there. “

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 8:43 PM

              “Funny how IPCC reports have so many chapters besides a chapter on models.”
              Nice strawman. Wojick’s first sentence said “Climate models play a central role in the attribution of global warming or climate change to human causes.”
              The IPCC’s attribution chapters are based on climate models, so Wojick is correct, and you dishonestly claim that he was using a strawman argument.

              Funny how none of those IPCC reports can cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically show that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

              • Robert March 2, 2018 at 8:51 PM

                A relevant quote supporting your claim?
                “The IPCC’s attribution chapters are based on climate models..”

                • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:23 PM

                  “A relevant quote supporting your claim?”
                  Are you joking? Or just beginning your typical handwaving clown dance of obfuscation?

                  First sentence from AR5 Chap.10 ‘Detection and Attribution of Climate Change’ Executive Summary: “The consistency of observed and modeled changes… points to a large scale warming resulting primarily from anthropogenic increases in GHG concentrations.” An empirical-evidence-free claim, confirming Dr. Wojick’s claim that climate models are central in attribution to humans.

                  Also the attribution graphs in the IPCC reports are based on climate models: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05b36daaff0053aaff230071fc2c94810e8cf6ae4b6b2c627b6e299c97f17189.png

                  There isn’t a single citation in the entire attribution chapter of a paper that empirically shows anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of any climate warming. In fact, there has never been a single peer reviewed paper cited in any of the 5 IPCC reports that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

                  Your whole false pseudoscience CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alamrism religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which project too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t project future global temperature at even a 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) That “warming stagnation” continued to 18 years and only ended because of natural warming of the 2015-2016 El Nino, which released stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 10:14 PM

                    Why not bold observed .

                    Oh, that’s right. e person who thinks Attack the Messenger and attempted insulting is supporting an assertion.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 10:38 PM

                      Poor Robert, still denying the reality that climate models are the central core of attribution of climate warming to humans. Climate models are GIGO, omitted variable fallacy. The models can’t model natural climate variability, so they can’t attribute warming to human vs. natural causes. So sad that you are a denier of reality.

                      And you are still doing your clown dance of obfuscation, because 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 as your climate cult claims. Peer reviewed science shows that climate warming continues to be natural, just like every climate warming in the history of the planet.

                      Care to explain why the hottest temperature ever measured at an offical station happened in 1913, http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/ .
                      Humans have added 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere since then, over 95% of all the human CO2 ever produced, and all that human CO2 hasn’t been able to cause a single higher recorded temperature to be recorded anywhere at an temperature monitoring station on the face of the planet. Why is that, if CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming?
                      Answer: Because human CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. Sadly, you are a denier of that reality and a denier of natural climate change.

                    • Robert March 2, 2018 at 11:03 PM

                      And off we go into the ‘the hottest temp….’

                      Thanks. We needed a reminder that you were having a vocabulary problem causing confusion between weather and climate.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:43 AM

                      “off we go into ‘the hottest temp’
                      Poor Robert, denying reality again, obfuscating because the real world exposes that you are peddling rubbish pseudoscience.

                      Yet another comment totally devoid of any empirical science that shows your climate cult religion to be true, just more clown dancing. Sad.

                    • Robert March 2, 2018 at 11:07 PM

                      Who has done this research supporting your ” Because human CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. ” assertion?

                      Cite your best research. Those wthi the best expertise. Those who won’t cause your anonymous peer reviewer to raise a skeptical eyebrow.

                      Tell us again why your assertion isn’t part of a growing body of research driving policy.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:42 AM

                      Poor Robert, denying reality once again, and dodging the fact that you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically supports your false climate cult religion’s pseudoscience. Sad.

                    • Robert March 4, 2018 at 11:17 AM

                      Funny how you keep repeating that.
                      In spite of multiple times over the months past and even a day past being pointed to work showing your claim to be false.

                      One of the advantages of a hidden history…..

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:03 PM

                      “Funny how you keep repeating that.”
                      I repeat it because it is true.

                      “In spite of multiple times over the months past being pointed to work showing your claim to be false.”
                      You are lying again, confirmed by your inability to link to any such times.

                      “One of the advantages of a hidden history”
                      That was required to stop the harassment of you rabid fanatical climate cult zealots like ROO2, my serial impersonator.

                      None of you have ever shown any of the science that I have posted to be wrong. You just lie and claim to have done that, but you are proven wrong by your inability to link to any such refutation of the science that I have presented.

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 11:00 PM

                    Let’s tease this out a bit…
                    “… paper that empirically shows anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of any climate warming. ”

                    It is a rather odd claim. And one I know you’ve been shown is false before, but tell us this;
                    How do you know that?

                    You’ve read every paper published?

                    You’ve done extensive research on the various dstsbases?

                    You’ve established a reputation in your publishing history that would put a certain level of credibility in that statement?

                    Or did you do an AOL search and found somebody on some blog saying that?

                    Oh, yup. Malcolm Roberts noted researcher

                    Why Malcolm Roberts’ demand for ’empirical evidence’ on climate change is misleading
                    Scientist and Nobel prize-winner Peter Doherty says new One Nation senator ‘has no understanding of how science works’
                    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk

                    Oh, and odin2 from years past
                    https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2014/12/12/evidence-of-global-warming/

                    Oh, this is funny. Over a year before Malcolm :
                    Surprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming
                    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/27/surprise-co2-directly-linked-to-global-warming/#416e89e53c2e

                    So, tell us why we should be believing you, fake name, hidden history, with no evidence, insults, and obfuscation purposed urls, instead of published writers in real publications citing real scientists and papers?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:42 AM

                      “it’s a rather odd claim”
                      No, it a claim that confirms your climate cult religion’s claim that humans are now responsible for climate warming is false.

                      “You’ve read every paper published”
                      Sorry that you’re ignorant enough to believe that you can prove a negative. My claim is true. All you need to do is cite just one peer reviewed paper to show that my statement is false. You can’t.

                      Thanks for once again confirming that you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2

                      And nice clown dance of obfuscation with your irrelevant links. Hilarious stupidity there.

                      “So, tell us why we should be believing you…”
                      Because what I have said is true and has never been refuted by any of you delusional, duped climate cult fanatical zealots who are peddling your climate cult religion.

                    • Robert Dekko March 3, 2018 at 1:34 PM

                      Ooo, I know… I know… it was the AOL search…

                    • Robert March 4, 2018 at 11:02 AM

                      Those disks were great !….
                      For gardeners, birds……

          • TreeParty March 2, 2018 at 8:54 PM

            Ah, but the fact checkers say:
            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/
            RealOldOne2 has no functioning B.S. detector. Bummer…He is apparently a guy who would rather believe James Delingpole than John Cook, despite the fact that Delingpole is a blowhard with NO evident science training, while John Cook is a self-effacing, self-funded scientist who has a PhD in cognitive science and training in solar physics.
            No. Functioning. B.S. Detector. Bummer..

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM

              “no functioning B.S. detector”
              I’ve provided peer reviewed empirical science to support my claim that climate warming continues to be natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.
              Your climate cult has provided ZERO peer reviewed empirical science to support its climate alarmist religious claims.

              Thanks for confirming that YOU have no functioning B.S. detector since you have swallowed the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.

            • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 4:16 PM

              You should actually read the posts of RealOldOne. He cites real science and quotes the scientiststs.

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:30 AM

                So, Poptek and WUWT are “real science” and university research programs are “fake science”?

          • Robert March 2, 2018 at 9:08 PM

            Your transparent Attack the Messenger effort is duly noted.

            • RealOldOne2 March 2, 2018 at 9:24 PM

              Your continued inability to cite any peer reviewed empirical science to support your false pseudoscience climate cult religion is duly noted.

    • CB March 2, 2018 at 9:20 PM

      “Starting w a strawman is hardly ever a winning strategy”

      Starting with such a blindingly-obvious incentive to lie isn’t either…

      “CFACT is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit group… Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website adds that Exxon has contributed a further $577,000 between 2000 and 2007.”

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow#Funding

      • David Wojick March 3, 2018 at 2:51 PM

        It costs money to get the truth out. Also, last I knew Greenpeace’s income was $40 million a year, and that was a long time ago.

        • Immortal600 March 3, 2018 at 8:17 PM

          Forgive poor CB. She thinks the science was settled in the 19th century. LOL

    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM

      Warming is a sure sign … of … well, warming. It does not implicate a cause. Theory has it, that warming is a sign of an energy imbalance of the planet … taking in more energy than it sheds … kinda like me, and food calories. However, Trenberth found is “missing heat” … I believe it was explained away as Pacific trade winds blowing warmed water into a pile, where, by the weight of it, the warm water sank, bringing with it, the heat … sequestering it into the ocean, so it did not warm the surface and the atmosphere … hence, the pause.

      However, that could easily work in reverse. The oceans are normally a heat sink. If warm water was allowed to pool on the surface, the oceans could act as less of a heat sink to the atmosphere and the surface land. This would cause a temperature rise without a planetary energy imbalance. In other words, this is still within the range of natural variability.

      In as much as there is no observational evidence that furtherance of CO2 emissions will cause warming, or … ever has caused warming … this little theory on a fast-food napkin is as good as the AGW theory. After all, Trenberth says the ocean ate his global warming … reciprocity says, the ocean could have puked up this global warming.

    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM

      “Climate models play a central role in the attribution of global warming or climate change to human causes.”

      What is ‘straw’ about that statement? Using climate models is the the ONLY way that science has to attribute some phenomena as being worse or better due to “Climate Change”.

      • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM

        Scientists also have field research, observations, and data to help them attribute phenomena to climate change.

  3. James Owens March 3, 2018 at 9:04 AM

    There are 3 main drivers of the earth’s climate system: the sun, the reflection of solar energy (albedo), and the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.
    Except for the sun itself, humans are changing or tinkering with each.
    In some ways small: particulates in the atmosphere can take a bit more solar energy while sulfate aerosols can reflect a bit more incoming solar (so we have negative as well as positive effects, all of which have to be accounted for and balanced).
    And in some ways large: those greenhouse gases – CO2 is the main one, but we’re also adding methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and a fairly long list of minor ones.
    Finally, each of these items are observed and measured – and they become inputs for the models – they are not the models themselves.
    So here’s one of the IPCC Figures mentioned – a basic horizontal bar chart. Note you have both negative values on the left and positive values on the right. Uncertainty or error for each also provided and the level of scientific confidence in the values over in the far right column. The total changes for selected years are at the bottom. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51cdc7cfc76e720361c974c26fd8daf25ee848fd4df1a7a3fa1670528aa9de9f.png

    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM

      Still peddling your fake computer modelling CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 global warming religion, which is not supported by any empirical evidence. Sad.

      I’m still waiting for you to provide any empirical science that shows humans are the primary cause of global warming. You’ve made dozens and dozens of replies to me an you have NEVER provided a shred of empirical evidence that show your climate cult religion is true.

      • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 11:56 AM

        Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, your memory and reading comprehension are in such sad, sad shape.
        No part of my comment above was about models; just the measurements and observations of scientists.
        And as I’ve noted for you more than once in past comments – look at the C12, C13, and C14 isotope changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
        Plant photosynthesis causes plant carbon to be relatively poor in C13 and enriched in C12. So a plant or fossil fuel source adds more C12 to the atmosphere, diluting the C13
        C14 has a half-life of 5700 years. So a fossil fuel source will be extremely depleted – and the C14 in the atmosphere will decrease if the source is fossil fuels
        So C13/ is declining when C12 rich material enters the atmosphere, note #1 the axis in the figure is a NEGATIVE LOG – so -8.2 is less than -7.5 and note #2 multiple Scripps sites: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/17bcba60e4b0f9b732b53e03fda342472ea2a182478baebd3735df01808107e4.png
        And even with the billions of tons of carbon involved pretty much eliminating a current plant source, that decrease in C14 simply confirms that it’s fossil fuels https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/138a1b930d5a6eff7f59effb6a9f3d37948bbb3a3f653a83c51a34caaac15b97.png

        • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 1:21 PM

          “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, your memory and reading commprehension are in such sad, sad shape.”
          Nice projection there James on the poor memory and poor reading comprehension thing. You seem to have forgotten that I’ve schooled you on the climate system and you’ve been unable to comprehend the peer reviewed empirical science that I’ve presented to you which shows that climate warming is still natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

          So sad that you are still throwing your dishonest namecalling tantrum because you are angry that I have exposed the fact that you can’t produce any empirical evidence that humans have been the primary cause of global warming.

          All I’ve done is ask you to produce real world empirical evidence that shows your climate cult religion is true. That’s not a raving lunatic. It’s what scientists do … ask for empirical evidence.

          You are the one acting like a raving lunatic, ranting and raving as you thrash and flail in desperation as you toss out one false propaganda talking point after another, as you just demonstrated once again. Carbon isotopes are NOT empirical evidence for human causation of global warming.
          Changes in δ¹³ ratio are not a fingerprint of human causation because the δ¹³ ratio for burning fossil fuels is exactly the same as natural decaying of vegetation.
          And the decline in C¹⁴ is also not a fingerprint, because it’s just the natural decay from the “bomb spike” in the mid-1900s, as shown in the last chart in this Oak Ridge National Labs report: http://1.usa.gov/SGFleW .

          Once again, you totally fail to provide any empirical evidence showing that humans have been the primary cause of climate change.

          Rant on with your temper tantrum James. It’s all you can do since there is no empirical science showing that your pseudoscience CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion is true.

          • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 1:50 PM

            Poor OldRealRavingLunatic, it’s simply climate science for the most part of the comment.
            On 14C – first, here’s a fairly simple explainer that may help you
            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html
            And the two sources – background cosmogenic and the 1950s atmospheric testing release can be separated – see Graven Impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric radiocarbon and various applications of radiocarbon over this century PNAS v112 9542-9545 2015 (this is open source)
            So you have literal mountains of empirical evidence – that you repeated ignore – oh well.

            • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:18 PM

              “Poor OldRealRavingLunatic…”
              Poor James still throwing your namecalling tantrum. So so sad. But so so typical of scientifically illiterate dupe doomsday climate cult fanatics.

              Nothing in your propaganda website refutes what I posted or what the ORNL report said about the drop in C¹⁴ being due to natural decay from the “bomb spike”. And the paper you cite is model-based rubbish. So sad that you are too ignorant to understand science, which allows you to be so easily duped.

              “So you have literal mountains of empirical evidence – that you repeatedly ignore.”
              Not a bit of the empirical evidence shows human causation.
              That’s why neither you, nor the IPCC, nor anyone else in your climate cult religion can cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of the late 20th century climate warming, or any other climate warming in the history of the planet. So sad that are such a reality denier. But that’s what duped doomsday cult fanatics do.

              Yet another total FAIL by poor James to cite any empirical science to support your climate cult religion.

              • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 2:33 PM

                Poor DearOldRavingLunatic,
                You seem to continue to deny very basic climate science – we humans have raised greenhouse gas levels, those have raised temps about 1 degree C (and continue to do so), the ocean heat content has increased and sea levels are rising, etc. All observed and measured science.
                Nothing to do with any religion or beliefs, just basic facts.

                • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:37 PM

                  “Poor DearOldRavingLunatic”
                  Awww, the poor climate cult zealot is still throwing a name calling tanturm. So sad that you don’t realize that your childish behavior just discredits you and identifies you as a fanatical climate cult zealot.

                  And yet another comment totally devoid of empirical science showing human causation of climate warming.

                  “Nothing to do with any religion or beliefs”
                  Wrong. You’ve provided ZERO empirical science. All you do is repeatedly post your false climate cult dogmas which are mere beliefs and claims. You lose again, just like you always lose when you deny science.

                  • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 2:54 PM

                    Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, he continues to spiral down in denying the science and facts.
                    The thread began with a post on radiative forcing and then a post that including set of analyses of carbon isotopes – from multiple stations run by the Scripps Institute.
                    If any readers want to peruse the literature from Scripps on their CO2 program, this page has publications going back to 1954 http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/scientific_literature
                    Realoldravinglunatic says there’s no science, oh well.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:58 PM

                      “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, he continues to spiral dow in denying the science and facts”
                      Poor James, perfect projection there, for that’s exactly what YOU are doing!

                      And yet ANOTHER comment from angry James which ignores the science that proves you wrong, and is totally devoid of any empirical science showing human causation of climate warming.

                    • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 3:26 PM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, I’m not angry – I just like to see you post and ramble.
                      So far, I’ve never been disappointed in your 25,000+ comments.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 5:05 PM

                      “PoorRealOldRavingLunatic”
                      Poor angry James is still throwing your childish name calling tantrum. So sad.

                      And yet ANOTHER reply to me totally devoid of any empirical science that shows that humans have been the primary cause of climate change as your climate cult dogma claims.

                      “I just like to see you post and ramble”
                      So you admit that you are a masochist who likes to be exposed as scientifically illiterate by my repeated posting of empirical science that shows that you are wrong and are peddling junk pseudoscience groupthink. Interesting.

                    • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 7:55 PM

                      See RealOldRvingLunatic – you’re predictable and dependable, nonsense again and again.
                      No – in your case, I’m a bit of a sadist. Chinese torture – drip, drip – comment, comment

                    • Immortal600 March 3, 2018 at 8:08 PM

                      RealOld is right. You and all the other AGW believers have yet to demonstrate any evidence that CO2 is driving climate change. Your graphs and links don’t do it, so it is no surprise that you resort to childish behavior. Try trolling elsewhere, your garbage impresses no one here.

                    • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 8:22 PM

                      Just truth and facts. And as with RealOldRavingLunatic, the figures and graphs aren’t mine – they’re from the scientific literature that shows AGW is real.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 11:22 PM

                      “scientific literature that shows AGW is real”
                      Poor James, nothing you have posted shows that humans have been the primary cause of climate warming. The empirical evidence shows that it is still natural, primarily more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface and warm phases of ocean cycles. Here you go again:

                      Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014) are all peer reviewed papers which show 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, while CO2 forcing only increased ~0.5W/m². Of course those aren’t the only factors in climate change, but we have specific quantification of those two forcings, so it is indicative of the relative contributions to warming of those two components.

                      1) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

                      2) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m². – “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” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was confirmed by Goode(2007). “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.” – Goode(2007) ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance’

                      This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – Pinker(2005) ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m² over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm⁻² of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm⁻² absorbed by the surface.” – Herman(2013) ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014)- “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.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

                      The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

                      3) The IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m² forcing over the 1984-2000 timeframe of Hatzianastassiou(2005). (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – Source for radiative forcing equation: IPCC TAR, WG1, Table 6.2, p.358

                      This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate forcing was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solarradiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

                      “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’

                      The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
                      • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
                      • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

                      This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

                      Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
                      • Warm phase of the PDO : http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG &
                      http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
                      http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/pdo
                      • Warm phase of the AMO :
                      https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
                      • Predominance of El Ninos:
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)

                      In addition, you can study the cites and quotes from 200 peer reviewed papers published since 2010 which demonstrate solar control of the climate here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/over-200-peer-reviewed-papers.html

                      This is not new. Peer reviewed papers going back nearly 50 years have shown the same thing. Budyko(1969) is one:

                      “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’ “

                      Empirical science and data support my contention that global warming is natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

                      You have NO empirical evidence that shows humans are the primary cause of global warming.

                      Once again.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 8:06 AM

                      Good, we’re moving to a discussion of some actual data – in this case on what possible contributions any changes in solar output may have made to the recent warming since the 1880s. The bottom line is that any changes in sun are 3% or less of the total forcing change the earth has experienced. So the sun has been eliminated as a cause for almost 10 years now.
                      First, let’s distinguish solar energy above the earth or total solar irradiance (TSI in your graph) from the solar forcing (Fsol) which is what changes the climate – and remember, it is the change or delta. Here’s the formula: ΔFsol = 0.7 × ΔTSI / 4
                      Second, what time period to use as the baseline to measure the change in TSI (ΔTSI)? We want that to be before we humans began to introduce large emissions of greenhouse gases and after the sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum (that sharp drop between 1610-1720 in your graph. So that pretty much does it 1740-1780 for the baseline.
                      Third, is the actual hard part. The actual change in TSI (ΔTSI). We’ve only had satellites above the atmosphere since about 1979. Before that, scientists have to use various proxies for solar irradiance. That field grew and changed the estimated ΔTSI a fair amount between 1990 and 2015 as more and more data poured in. So one has to be very careful in work with the more recent data
                      So here is the figure from one of the key pieces of data used by the IPCC in 2013: Krivova et al “Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance” J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 73:223–234 2011
                      The low baseline value is marked in blue and the high current value is marked in red. ΔTSI is about 0.35 Watts/m^2. So using the formula, divide by 4 and 0.09 Watts/m^2 and the times 0.7 and about 0.06 Watts/m^2 for the ΔFsol. That’s 3% of the change in forcing the earth has experienced. So solar change is eliminated as a cause
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/738881294e437951d1561365c2c11cabe0e20197d6e36c1bca7b351cf6c39d7c.png

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 10:13 AM

                      TSI, despite being, in name “Total” … does not measure many things of the influence of the sun.
                      TSI has no measure at the smaller wavelengths, such as the extreme ultraviolet, soft and hard X-rays, etc. Variations in this high-energy radiation are primarily absorbed by the atmosphere, while the vast majority of the TSI is absorbed by the surface. Ever considered “ozone forcing” ??
                      TSI has no measure of mass ejecta …the “solar wind” or CME
                      TSI has no measure of the magnetic influence … and it has been shown that the sun’s magnetic field deflects incoming cosmic rays … GCRs … and GCRs have been shown to induce cloud nucleation, hence forming clouds.

                      Even the TSI is a controversial “measure” … the dispute is largely based upon the ACRIM gap.
                      You must close your eyes to real science to believe just one branch. You ignore science by myopically focusing on the TSI and ignoring the other influences of the sun. Would you actually be a science denier?

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM

                      Good comment stating several natural variables that impact climate and are not even considered in climate models, which is what the entire global warming scare is based on.
                      And there are dozens more. The models point to CO2 as cause because of the omitted variable fallacy.

                      And yes, James is a science denier.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 12:12 PM

                      We won’t be convincing James, but we must keep posting, lest his distortions be accepted by others. Many people read our comments. We must continue with integrity.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 1:30 PM

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7708f85bdd817a9ab0b3aebea8d82ef5271ebbc9c52655864226fa7cf537398.jpg

                      Mitchell 2015: “Note that none of the GCMs includes solar effects from solar energetic particles, except for CESM-WACCM1.”

                      Mitchell, D. M., et al. 2015 “Solar signals in CMIP‐5 simulations: the stratospheric pathway.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM

                      The total solar irradiance (TSI) is just that – irradiance via electromagnetic irradiation. That’s how energy gets to the top of the earth’s atmosphere. On ultraviolet, remember that the spectra measured goes down below 200 nanometers. The energy output in 200-210 nm range is a very, very small portion of the total TSI, 0.12 Watts/m^2 – so you’re trying to pass off a red herring there.
                      Then, most of the ultraviolet does react with the upper stratosphere, heating it (and the TSI, of course, has already been measured above the atmosphere). And it has been reviewed – see the IPCC AR5 section 8.4.1.4.1 Impacts of ultraviolet variations on the stratosphere
                      The Svensmark “nucleation” hypothesis from cosmic rays has been studied and found to have no real basis.
                      Finally, I’d suggest some reading:
                      Kopp et al The impact of the revised sunspot record on solar irradiance reconstructions Solar Phys 291:2951-2965 2016
                      Kopp Magnitudes and timescales of total solar irradiance variability J Space Weather Space Clim vol6 A30 2016

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 12:08 PM

                      I’ve read Kopp’s work, and Lean’s, and Coddington, Fröhlich, and many others. The TSI does not adequately measure the small wavelengths. It also is an aggregate measure, a lump-sum. Breaking that TSI data down into various bands of wavelengths, i.e., resolving the data, spectrally, is what the SSI measurement is all about. It is expected that the integral, the sum-total effect of each measured spectra chunk would total up to the TSI … the fact that it does not … not even close, is yet another clue that TSI is a less-meaningful measurement.

                      Ermolli 2013: ”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.”

                      ”…the main uncertainty in the models concerns the wavelength range 220–400 nm, where the magnitude of the variations differs by as much as a factor of three between models.”

                      Ermolli, Ilaria, et al. 2013 “Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
                      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

                      Coddington 2015: ”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

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

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

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

                      Scafetta & Willson 2014 would be a good starting point for you, as well as a bit of Zacharias 2014, which just succinctly said, your conclusions that “the sun didn’t do it” (as far as cycle to cycle variations) … is premature.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 12:33 PM

                      Yes, Kopp, Lean, Coddington, Fröhlich, Lockwood, Usoskin, and many others say that TSI is indeed the total solar irradiance needed for climate studies.
                      Next, read up the thread – I’d noted that satellite measures only go back to about 1979 and to go further back than that one had to use various proxies to reconstruct the TSI. Take note that the IPCC says the greatest uncertainty comes from using such proxies versus having direct measurements.
                      And again, the current conclusion of science in the National Climate report

                      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.

                      “Alternative explanations” include solar variations if you read the report. And again, five years ago, IPCC said the solar forcing change was about +0.05 Watts/m^2.
                      Also, yes, Ermolli et al “Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling” Atmos Chem Phys 13:3945-3977 2013 and Coddington et al “A solar irradiance climate data record” Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 97:1265-1282 2016 are very good reviews of the state-of-the-art of TSI measurement via satellites. But they don’t address the necessity of using proxies to obtain the change in TSI from pre-industrial times.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM

                      Ermolli 2013: ”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.”

                      So, no … TSI is not the total solar influence needed for climate studies.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM

                      The TSI is the energy at the top of the atmosphere. Once within the atmosphere, including the stratosphere – it’s no longer a TSI issue. It’s handed off to others. That’s why other climate scientists work with the ultraviolet driven changes in the atmosphere. Remember, the IPCC addressed that with the available data in 2013.
                      And I’m 99+% certain you know that – so stop blowing smoke about the TSI.
                      Are there issues with the stratosphere that you don’t think have been handled properly – specify them, say why, give some citations – and rather than you just going in circles – we can consider and discuss.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 1:14 PM

                      Proxies aside, the ACRIM gap … a period in which we did not have satellite observations to adequately watch the sun … dirty tricks were foisted upon us. Someone said that the instrument had become “more sensitive” and thus had to be “corrected downward” …

                      Douglas Hoyt: ”1. There is no known physical change in the electrically calibrated N7 radiometer, or its electronics, that could have caused it to become more sensitive” (as quoted in Scafetta, Nicola, and Richard C. Willson 2014).

                      The result was a small decrease in (supposed) TSI, as opposed to a small increase, if the readings were left alone. Considering how small “Global Warming” really is … 0.15% of the sunshine … it does not take much illicit “adjusting” to make the readings support the theory.
                      Fig. 2: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0807662e8e10a6c3d08cafd4b9299f703874adb4b8d5632741a1ad203e97a69e.jpg

                      Fig. 13: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cf56c841460fed02fde14edfe2af958a050105ae8391eeb4d3019c73fff806d3.jpg

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 1:52 PM

                      Now all you have to do is to get Kopp, Lean, Coddington, Fröhlich, Lockwood, Usoskin, and many others to agree.
                      And frankly – look at where you gone – into deep, dark conspiracy theories about dirty tricks, illicit this and that.
                      I also believe you’re aware of Scafeta’s history – why in the world you bring that up?
                      Come back to reality. Stick with the actual science.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 1:27 PM

                      Even the reconstruction (from proxies) done by Lean himself, show that the changes in the TSI, since 1950 (to 2016) account for 30% of the supposed ½W/㎡ of “Global Warming”. Since 1810, the sun has increased intensity by 0.836W/㎡
                      TSI data http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86e1a271af8e45a30621811f2fec4c4e059e7bfbd8f983f06241133a92aaf6ba.jpg

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 2:04 PM

                      Better go check – herself – it’s Judith Lean. And remember, 1810 was during the Dalton minimum.
                      Now – in Kopp et al The impact of the revised sunspot record on solar irradiance reconstructions Solar Phys 291:2951-2965 2016.
                      Kopp, Krivova, and Lean go thru several ways to reconstruct the TSI.
                      The bottom line is that they are raising the TSI in the 1740-1780 time period slightly, so reducing the change in TSI and thus the change in solar forcing. So they wind up and conclude:

                      The net effect on climate due to this new sunspot-number record is at a nearly insignificant level. Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature.

                      So stop playing these silly games.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 2:37 PM

                      “Better go check – herself – it’s Judith Lean”

                      Only the progressives keep track of the sex and skin colour. To the rest of us, they are all just scientists.

                      Koop’s 2016 paper is about the TSI … as noted earlier, the TSI is not sufficient to characterize the sun’s influence on the planet.
                      SILSO is a “sunspot number” proxy.
                      Sunspots do not accurately reflect the TSI.
                      Zacharias 2014: ”Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the true nature of solar variability lies in the magnetic field of the Sun itself. Proxies of solar activity, such as the sunspot number or area, plage area, the solar radio flux at 10.7 cm, the MgII index or the Ca II K line, which all TSI models rely on, might reflect only part of the truth.”

                      Make a note, James … the science is telling you to pay attention to the magnetic influence.

                      Lukianova & Ursula 2011: ”We note that the changed mutual relation between sunspot numbers and UV/EUV proxies continues systematically during the whole declining phase of solar cycle 23, with the UV/EUV proxies attaining relatively larger values for the same sunspot number than during the several decennia prior to this time.”

                      ”Overall, the various solar activity parameters correlate quite well with sunspot numbers and with each other, especially at long sampling times and over long time scales. Moreover, the mutual relations are also found to stay fairly stable in time.”

                      ”However, it was found some time ago (Floyd et al., 2005) that the mutual relation between sunspot numbers and three solar UV/EUV indices, the F10.7 flux, the MgII core-to-wing ratio (Viereck et al., 2001, 2004), which is an index of chromospheric UV irradiance near 280 nm (Heath and Schlesinger, 1986), and the HeI 1083 equivalent width (Donnelly et al., 1985), remained stable for roughly 25 years until the year 2000, but dramatically changed thereafter at the end of 2001.”

                      sunspots do not equal the TSI. They are similar.

                      Lukianova, R., and K. Ursula 2011. “Changed relation between sunspot numbers, solar UV/EUV radiation and TSI during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

                      … and the current global average temperature anomaly is only +0.33°C above the chosen climatology. How’s that for “settled science” and your “…possible 0.1°C increase…”

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:16 AM

                      “Good, we’re moving on to a discussion of actual data”
                      Since you have been unable to provide any empirical data for human causation of climate change, I’ve been repeatedly showing you empirical data that shows continued natural causation. But sadly, as expected, you just deny and dismiss that data. But at least you have calmed down a bit and have stopped your childish name calling tantrum.

                      “The bottom line is that any changes in sun are 3% or less of the total forcing change the earth has experienced. So the sun has been eliminated as a cause for almost 10 years now.”
                      That’s a total logic fail and false conclusion.
                      1) Using your logic: In 2007 the IPCC claimed that the total anthropogenic forcing since the industrial era was 1.6W/m². This is only about half of the 2.5W/m² change in TSI forcing from the Lean TSI graph that I posted. So using your methodology/logic we are twice a confident in ruling out changes in CO2 as causing global warming since the pre-industrial era as we are in ruling out the sun.

                      2) Since the sun is the only source of thermal energy transferred to the earth’s surface, those changes in solar radiation are the obvious natural cause of any long term global climate change.

                      3) Since even climate alarmists accept that 90% of global warming is observed in the increase in ocean heat content, and since solar radiation is the only physical mechanism of transferring heat into the ocean, that means that at least 90% of the observed warming is natural, caused by the Sun.

                      4) You ignore amplification/feedback factors that exist in the natural climate system. Peer reviewed science has shown these to be 5 to 7 times greater than the direct changes in TSI:

                      “We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variation is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism” – Shaviv(2008) ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing’

                      4) Your calculation cherry picks a short time period and uses a TSI reconstruction that used new assumptions in order to reduce the TSI change from the Lean graph that I presented. The Lean graph that I presented shows a 2.5W/m² change from the pre-industrial era using .

                      5) You totally ignore what I posted about the PDO, AMO, El Nino and other ocean circulations/cycles which release natural stored solar heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.

                      6) You totally ignore the fact that what is more important than the changes in TSI at the TOA is the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. And you totally ignore the empirical data from the multiple peer reviewed papers I cited which show that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², which was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing, 85% of which is natural.

                      Bottom line: You totally FAIL to refute any of the empirical evidence that I presented which shows that global warming is natural, not anthropogenic.

                      And once again, you totally FAIL to provide any empirical evidence for human causation of global warming.

                      Since you will be unable to refute any of what I have posted, I expect that it will cause you to once again get angry and erupt into your typical childish name calling tantrum.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 10:54 AM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic is back to his norm of ranting, twisting data, and denial.
                      Remember, in 2013 AR5 (the most recent), the IPCC assessed the various forcings, including solar.
                      That’s in the figure near the top of our thread.
                      To help you out, I’ll extract the key numbers we are talking about now
                      The total change in radiative forcing in 2011 was 2.29 Watts/m^2
                      The solar change was 0.05 Watts/m^2
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51cdc7cfc76e720361c974c26fd8daf25ee848fd4df1a7a3fa1670528aa9de9f.png

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 11:06 AM

                      Te fact that you have to start with an insult weakens your argument and shows you can’t refute what RealOldOne says. Sad.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:04 PM

                      “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic is back to his norm of ranting, twisting data, and denial.”
                      Hahaha. Just as I predicted, you were unable to refute any of the empirical science that I presented, so you would get angry because you couldn’t refute it and once again begin throwing your normal name calling tantrum. You climate cult fanatics are sooooo predictable.

                      No ranting by me, just point by point exposing your fallacious arguments and presenting the empirical science which you ignore because it proves you wrong. And I notice that you were unable to refute a single point that I made. All you could do is post a fake graph of climate model based rubbish pseudoscience. Sad.

                      Yet AGAIN, you have totally FAILED to provide any empirical science that shows humans have been the primary cause of the recent global warming.
                      Don’t you ever get tired of FAILING? You are soooooo good at it!

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 12:40 PM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, it’s not me you have to worry about. It’s the long list of scientific summaries that review the evidence and conclude AGW is real. It’s those scientists you have to deal with and to refute, not me.
                      The yearly American Meteorological Society “State of the Climate” special supplements (an example of the most recent, usually out in August or September each year and links to previous years: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
                      There’s the 4th National Climate Report https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
                      There’s the Royal Society update that also came out last November, https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2017/climate-updates/
                      Look at the US Academy of Science and Royal Society: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
                      Look at the American Association for the Advance of Science http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/ including their report http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
                      Look at the Australian CSIRO toplines and summaries https://www.csiro.au/en/Showcase/state-of-the-climate and their latest full report http://www.csiro.au/~/media/OnA/Files/StateOfTheClimate2016_24ppReport_WEB.pdf
                      Look at the American Chemical Society and its climate science pages https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/about.html
                      Look at the American Institute of Physics, they have an extensive site on Global Warming https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
                      Look at the UK Meteorological Office page on climate science https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/science-behind-climate-change and other more general pages https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide , there are a number of links to reports on climate if you scroll down the page a bit – it’s over on the right to DOWNLOADS
                      Finally, there’s the IPCC reports (the science volumes, not the others) every 5-6 years. The 2013 AR5 physical science report is the latest but it’s getting a bit out of date as climate data and studies pour in – still the most detailed: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:46 PM

                      “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic…”
                      Gee, only one attempt at discussing science which I totally debunked, and you quickly fell back into your normal mode of name calling tantrum. Sad.

                      And no, none of those organizations who accept the currently popular groupthink climate cult madness have provided any empirical evidence that humans have been the primary cause of recent global warming. They only repeat the baseless, empirical evidence-free CLAIMS.

                      Once again you FAIL to support your false climate cult religion with any real empirical science and data. You are one pathetic brainwashed climate cult zealot who denies empirical data and science. Sad.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM

                      And those organizations provide detailed discussions of the data, provide the citations, bring the data together in exhibits like the IPCC table I’ve posted here a couple of times.
                      That’s why, after looking at the data, they conclude AGW is real.
                      All your huffing and puffing can’t make the data disappear, can’t make the science disappear.
                      That’s why I enjoy these comment threads – you just get more and more ridiculous.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 1:51 PM

                      “An those organizations…”
                      I challenged you to link to any empirical evidence from any of those organizations which showed that humans have been the primary cause of global warming and you can’t because there is none.

                      “That’s why I enjoy these comment threads – you just get more an more ridiculous.”
                      You are soooo good at projection! You are enjoying exposing your scientific illiteracy and making a total fool out of yourself as you drone on with your childish “RealOldRavingLunatic” name calling. I’ve asked you for empirical evidence supporting your claim that humans have been the primary cause of global warming and you’ve provided NONE! You are the one becoming more and more ridiculous. Not me, as you’ve not refuted a single thing that I have posted. Once again, you FAIL.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 2:05 PM

                      Hey, I’ve given the links for every organization. Stop going in circles.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 2:16 PM

                      “Hey, I’ve given the links for every organization.”
                      Hahahaha Nice display of your fallacious reasoning.
                      Links to the organizations are meaningless because they provide ZERO empirical evidence.
                      Link me to the empirical DATA which shows that humans are the primary cause of global warming. You can’t because there is none. You FAIL once again.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM

                      No, the links are to the organization reports with the data analysis and citations.
                      You know that – so stop playing really stupid.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:49 PM

                      ZERO empirical evidence showing that humans have been the primary cause of global warming on any of those organizations links.

                      And thanks for your other comment where you post empirical data which shows that at least 93.4% of global warming is natural. Nice own goal!

                      You lose again.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:10 PM

                      Sorry, tons of evidence there. And it’s the heat imbalance – from AGW – that is warming the oceans. Just like the scientists note.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 7:20 PM

                      “tons of evidence there”
                      Then cite an quote it.
                      You can’t.
                      You are lying.
                      You lose.

                      “from AGW – that is warming the oceans”
                      Wrong. Solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans. And that is natural, so you have admitted that 93.4% of observed global warming is natural!

                      But you go ahead and tell us the human caused physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans. This ought to be good! Hahaha

                      It’s hilarious watching you debunk yourself! Hahahahahaha

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:38 AM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLuantic – calling the truth lies again – tsk, tsk, tsk
                      As I did in another post – I shot down your “one citation” strawman. I pointed out that the IPCC updates its assessment, mainly using the most recent studies.
                      So I summarized the AR5 2013 report, the physical sciences volume, where the recent data and evidence are discussed, noting that the previous AR4 was released in 2007 – so let’s look at nine years – the number of citations and the year of their publication:
                      2005….381 citations
                      2006….576 citations
                      2007….854 citations
                      2008….987 citations
                      2009….1191 citations
                      2010….1300 citations
                      2011….1313 citations
                      2012….1264 citations
                      2013….659 citations
                      That’s a total of 8,525 citations – and haven’t counted what came before 2004 where they are comparing older work with the newest.
                      So your “single study, one citation” strawman is kaput – claims of no evidence are kaput.
                      Better start reading … you gotta lot of work ahead of you.
                      And whoa, think a minute – finish off 2013, then 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and we’re now in 2018.
                      Looks like your reading list has doubled!!

                    • RealOldOne2 March 5, 2018 at 8:29 AM

                      “RealOldRavingLunatic”
                      Poor James, can’t defend your climate cult religion with emirical science, so you resort to childish name calling. You’re pathetic.

                      “That’s a total of 8,525 citations…”
                      Hahahahaha. But not a single one of them empirically shows that humans are the primary cause of any global warming!

                      All you have to do is cite one. You can’t. You lose.

                      Yet ANOTHER FAIL by James. Hilarious.

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM

                      AGW is NOT real. You don’t have the evidence to show it is real. Do you even understand that correlation does not necessarily mean causation?

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 10:03 AM

                      AGW is very real. Multiple lines of evidence, reproduced, etc. The science is there.
                      Now – on the particular area, the weight or degree of certainty in the data does vary.
                      A natural greenhouse effect, the increase in the earth’s climate heat content,* the rise in greenhouse gases and their role in that heat content increase, and the increase in radiative forcing from the added greenhouse gases – those are about as certain as science can make them. Hence, those are indeed areas of scientific consensus.
                      * remember, the heat content can be measured in several ways – surface temps, tropospheric and stratospheric temps, ocean heat content, ice melting, sea level rise … and I throw in the stratosphere as there’s cooling there – which is consistent with a greenhouse effect lower down.
                      Now there have been some alternative proposed – but the data has accumulated – it’s now to the level of very good agreement that cosmic rays (Svensmark) and changes in solar activity are NOT the causes of the heat content increase
                      So all your protests and denials are not just in vain, but silly
                      Join the skeptics like Curry and Spencer – they agree with the above, but their skepticism lie primarily in the future projections – where indeed the uncertainty is greater.

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM

                      They, like you, have the thermodynamics wrong. Again, CORRELATION does NOT mean CAUSATION. Get it? Probably not. Heat DISSIPATES, Energy does NOT. It is that simple. Heat doesn’t go up and up with CO2 additions and YOU can’t show otherwise. Your links and graphs are meaningless. Remember, Energy changes states and heat is one of those states. Where do you think WIND comes from???

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 11:19 AM

                      Rants and stomping your feet don’t change the science.
                      And if you’re discarding legitimate skeptics like Curry and Spencer – what are you left with??

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 2:04 PM

                      I am not ranting. That is your projection. You can’t refute what I have said to you resort to some childish comment.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 2:16 PM

                      Poor James is stuck on stupid.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:19 PM

                      You haven’t refuting anything – just hand waving statements.

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 6:20 PM

                      You haven’t shown AGW as being real either.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:42 PM

                      The scientific reports and summaries clearly do – suggest you read them rather than wander about in circles

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 6:46 PM

                      No they don’t. They are smoke and mirrors with trying to violate the second law of thermodynamics. HEAT and ENERGY are two different concepts that people like you wish to substitute one for the other. Yours is a shell game that doesn’t work.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:06 PM

                      What a hoot you are.
                      On thermodynamics you want want to read a page on Spencer’s blog.
                      The title of Spencer’s comments is a bit sarcastic Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 7:10 PM

                      His example is a poor one. It is obvious that you don’t have a clue about thermodynamics. HEAT DISSIPATES. It is NOT CONSERVED

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 8:14 AM

                      Keep up your comedy routine – you’re great for laughs.
                      So wrong. So sad. Remember, energy is conserved – so if heat energy moves from one place to another – the total energy is the same, neither created nor destroyed.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 7:10 PM

                      No evidence of cold objects transferring heat/thermal energy to warmer objects there. Only a reduction of one-way heat transfer from warmer objects to colder objects. 2nd Law.

                      Are you a 2nd Law denier too who claims that the cold atmosphere transfers heat to the warmer surface of he earth? Even more heat than is transferred to the earth’s surface than the sun does?

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 8:12 AM

                      I’ll repost – noting that you distilled the problem – there’s a two way exchange of heat transfer, not a one-way. A cold object and a warm object are both “black bodies” that radiate heat.
                      So some of the cold radiation goes to the warm; some of the warm to the cold – a two way exchange.
                      All the 2nd law says – the amount of the warm radiation leaving the warm body must be greater than the amount of the cold radiation coming in.
                      Does not forbid the cold body from radiating heat in a particular direction (toward the warm body).
                      And yes, when you measure at the surface of the earth – the average amount of solar shortwave radiation coming to the surface itself is about 160 Watts/m^2 and the average amount of greenhouse gas longwave IR radiation coming to the surface is about 342 Watts/m^2.
                      That’s why the greenhouse effect keeps the surface about 33° C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.
                      Yep, actual empirical data! See Damn Nitpicker’s figures on the earth’s energy budget.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 10:59 PM

                      “RealOldRvingLunatic”
                      Poor James, still ranting and raving as you throw your name calling tantrum. So sad.

                      You have yet to refute a single bit of the science that I’ve posted which empirically shows that climate warming continues to be natural.
                      You have yet to post any empirical science that shows that humans have been the primary cause of climate warming.

                      I have exposed you as being a scientifically illiterate duped member of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult.

                      It’s a hoot watching you making a fool out of yourself.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM

                      Actually, RealOldRavingLunatic, the pattern of our discussion is: I provide the real data and you deny it.
                      Two more comments just posted – one on the solar data and one quickly listing data sources with a quick figure comparing the data and the model outputs.
                      Enjoy!

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:16 AM

                      “Actually, RealOldRavingLunatic, the pattern of our discussion is: I provide the real data and you deny it.”
                      Wow you are delusional. Actually the pattern is: You begin by throwing a name calling tantrum, then you give some examples of propaganda from your climate cult which is just natural climate variability, then you deny the peer reviewed empirical science that I have presented.

                      Bottom line: After hundreds of replies to me you STILL have provided ZERO empirical evidence showing that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

                      “Two more comments just posted”
                      And two more FAILURES to provide any empirical science that shows humans are the primary cause of global warming.
                      I destroyed both your your lame, silly, logically fallacious comments with ignored all the peer reviewed empirical data that I presented.

                      So we have yet ANOTHER comment from you which totally FAILS to provide any empirical evidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 10:56 AM

                      I just provide the data for you and others. I post the empirical data and you reply and deny that there was any empirical data – undermining yourself and your denial.
                      I just let you hang yourself with your rants.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:55 AM

                      As Henri Poincare said, “Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.” The agglomeration of (supposed) “facts” you espouse is nothing more than piles of bricks …

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 12:46 PM

                      Meaningless dodge. Again, the basic stated conclusion of the National Climate Report. It’s note me you are arguing with, it’s those scientists doing the climate research year after year and building the evidence year after year https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

                      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.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:04 PM

                      “I post the empirical data and you reply and deny that there was any empirical data”
                      Wrong. I just point out that any data you supply only shows natural climate variability.
                      You have NOT yet provided ANY empirical data showing human causation of global warming.

                      Yet ANOTHER James Owens FAIL! Hilarious, how you enjoy exposing your inability to understand science. But that’s what duped climate cult fanatics do. Sad.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 12:43 PM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, again it’s not me; it’s the science you’re fighting and denying.
                      The thread is getting pretty convoluted – I’d listed some of the scientific summaries in another comment – so I’ll short list here:
                      American Meteorological Society “State of the Climate” special supplements (an example of the most recent, usually out in August or September each year and links to previous years: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
                      4th US National Climate Report https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
                      Royal Society update that also came out last November, https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2017/climate-updates/
                      US Academy of Science and Royal Society summary: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
                      American Association for the Advance of Science http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/ including their report http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
                      Australian CSIRO toplines and summaries https://www.csiro.au/en/Showcase/state-of-the-climate and their latest full report http://www.csiro.au/~/media/OnA/Files/StateOfTheClimate2016_24ppReport_WEB.pdf
                      American Chemical Society and its climate science pages https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/about.html
                      American Institute of Physics, they have an extensive site on Global Warming https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
                      Look at the UK Meteorological Office page on climate science https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/science-behind-climate-change and other more general pages https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide , there are a number of links to reports on climate if you scroll down the page a bit – it’s over on the right to DOWNLOADS

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:59 PM

                      “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic”
                      Your childish name calling tantrum proves you have lost the science argument, which is why you resort to that silly tactic.

                      “it’s not me; it’s the science you’re fighting and denying”
                      I’m not denying any science. You and all those organizations are denying empirical science, since NONE of those organizations have provided any empirical science that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of recent global warming as they claim.

                      I challenge you to pick your favorite source from that list and then link me to any evidence they provide that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of global warming.

                      You won’t, because NONE exists! You will just continue with your infantile name calling. Sad, but since the empirical science doesn’t support you, that’s all you can do.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 1:48 PM

                      There’s a whole list of many organizations and many scientists. They conclude AGW is real based on the evidence – the data from multiple sources and lines and the reproduction of the data.
                      You keep blowing smoke and your nonsense – I’ll keep replying.
                      PS – I gave you the links to their reports and statements and exhibits – you better start working.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 2:00 PM

                      “There’s a whole list of many organizations and may scientists. They conclude…”
                      NOTHING based on real empirical data and science. Their conclusions are based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which predict too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t project future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with models even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013)

                      I challenged you provide just one single peer reviewed paper that any of those organizations or scientists use to empirically show that humans have been the primary cause of global warming, and you CAN’T because NONE exists! You lose.

                • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:52 AM

                  We humans have, indeed, raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
                  The planet has warmed up a bit, lately. The claimed rise in temperature is highly exaggerated.
                  There is no observational evidence linking the two.

    • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 11:44 AM

      Interesting chart, what is the mechanism whereby a co2 molecule and the infra red photon add significantly to warming? Bearing in mind the curvature of the Earth and reducing reflective influences, and I don’t see any real slowing down of heat loss to space.

      Until we see a viable mechanism its all based on the supposition that C02 is a problem, even when I can see nothing the planet has not seen before. Our media has been full of warnings about extreme cold weather the last week or so, I remember several winters that have been much worse, so extreme is a blatant exaggeration of the truth. Incidentally was Global Warming suspended for Winter?

      • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 12:06 PM

        My goodness, Brin. The technical terms are radiative transfer and radiative forcing. The common layperson term is the greenhouse effect.
        The basic “problem” was recognized as early as the 1820s – if nothing in the atmosphere obstructs the loss of heat from the earth to space, we should be about 33° C colder than we are. So something in the atmosphere is obstructing the loss of heat.
        So as you note, scientists began to look for a mechanism.
        The lab work on the mechanism actually began in the 1850s with Tyndall’s observations that CO2, water vapor, and other substances interact with infrared radiation while the major gases like oxygen and nitrogen do not..
        Today, we have satellites recording earth’s emission spectra and ground stations recording the downward emission spectra of the atmosphere.
        Very well worked out and observed time and time again – no alternatives hold water.

        • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 1:09 PM

          But here we are talking about the exact mechanism and I have yet to see a viable explanation. I accept the photon is absorbed and instantly reradiated throughout 360 degrees. How do we quantify the effects of the small % that is man made? Can it possibly matter one iota compared to the effects of gravity which is the most powerful force in the universe?

          • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 1:22 PM

            Radiative forcing is the exact mechanism, Brian. It’s all out there in the basic atmospheric physics texts.
            Suggested reading if you have the basic undergrad pre-requisites in chemistry, physics, and math:
            Chapter 4 Radiative Transfer In: Atmospheric Science-An Introductory Survey, 2nd Edition, Wallace and Hobbs (Elsevier, 2006)
            Chapter 3 Atmospheric Radiation In: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics, 2nd Edition Andrews (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
            Chapter 3 Transfer Processes In: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans Curry and Webster (yes, the Judith Curry, the skeptic)
            Chapter 6 Radiative Transfer In: Elementary Climate Physics Taylor (Oxford University Press, 2007)
            Chapter 4 Radiative transfer in temperature-stratified atmospheres In: Principles of Planetary Climate Pierrehumbert (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

            • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 1:35 PM

              When I worked at the Institute of Aviation Medicine we had a vast spectrum of expertise. Any one of them was able to explain how and why in their own words what was the aim of their experiments and reasearch. Failure to do this was not encountered in the mid 50’s but it seems common place now. Why?

              • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM

                Actually, Brian, science and technical expertise have grown and flourished.
                The two problems we encounter:
                1) many less educated parties just grab whatever they want to believe off of internet sites, and
                2) a modest number of people deliberately try to undermine the science for political and ideological reasons

          • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 1:48 PM

            “I accept that the photon is absorbed and instantly reradiated throughout 360 degrees.”
            A Prof. of Physics emeritus at Princeton Univ. says that when a photon from the earth’s surface is absorbed by a ghg molecule in the atmosphere, almost all of that absorbed energy is transferred to surrounding N₂ & O₂ molecules before it can be re-emtted as a photon from the ghg molecule. It’s explained here: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

            You won’t make any headway trying to explain science to James. He’s demonstrated that he’s immune to learning real science because of his devotion to his climate cult dogmas.

            • Brin Jenkins March 3, 2018 at 2:13 PM

              Thanks for that, I was contemplating more of what happens in the upper atmosphere that can materially stop infra red heat losses connected to demonised C02. At the end of the day it all seems to be high end theoretical physics not borne out by observation or experimental data. The Green house effect seems totally discredited now. My qualification was HND in Physics back in 54. Much has happened since and the thermionic valve has passed into history.

              • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 2:28 PM

                You are correct that in the upper atmosphere where there is little nitrogen and oxygen, the CO2 would re-radiate energy into colder space. The laws of thermodynamics prohibit any heat/thermal energy being transferred from the colder atmosphere back to the surface of the earth, like the climate cult’s energy balance cartoon claims.

                You are correct that the real world observations and experimental data does not support the claims of the promoters of catastrophic global warming due to human or natural CO2. Global warming alarmism is a huge scam/hoax/fraud/lie.

                I think Dr. Lindzen correctly assessed the current climate craziness with this comment:

                “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.

                • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 10:48 AM

                  Munk 2002: ”We are in the uncomfortable position of extrapolating into the next century, without understanding the last.”

                  Munk, Walter 2002. “Twentieth century sea level: An enigma” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences

                  http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.full

              • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 10:46 AM

                Tubes are still in use!

            • Brin Jenkins March 4, 2018 at 4:18 AM

              I instinctively knew this was the key to the whole problem. Its exactly what I have been searching for, describing the mechanism very well indeed. From my level of physics this seems clear and understandable. Thank you so much, this will take a lot of explaining away.

              • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:39 AM

                However impossible that it may be, convincing James of the errors of his ways, we must not let his postings go unanswered, as these are public fora, and other people read our responses. We must keep up the fight, and do so with integrity.

          • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:29 AM

            “I accept the photon is absorbed and instantly reradiated…”

            No, don’t accept that … it isn’t true. Sure, a photon gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, but, in like 99.9999% of the time, the “excited” CO2 molecule transfers that energy to a neighbouring molecule, most likely N2 but occasionally O2 … resulting in a localized heating of that part of the atmosphere. Rarely …. really REALLY rarely, is that photon re-emitted. Otherwise, you’re statement is correct, and the difference is moot in effect. Just know that most times, it is transferred by collision, not emitted. That fact does not change the flux of photons, really … I’m just ticked at the mistake that is propagated by the alarmist industry.
            BTW, an energetic O2 or N2 molecule cannot radiate, but it can … and does … transfer that energy, through a collision, to a CO2 or H2O molecule, which can radiate a photon … it is totally reversible. However, radiation happens rarely.

        • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:22 AM

          Trenberth, Fasullo, & Balmaseda 2014: ”All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade, the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W/㎡.”
          That is small, compared to the incoming sunshine (about 340W/㎡) … around 0.15%
          (½÷340)=0.001471 ≈0.15%

          Ollila 2014: “The changes are so small that they can be analyzed only by computational methods.” i.e., the (theoretical) changes are too small to be observed, which is why there is no observational evidenced that continued emissions of CO2 will cause warming. In fact, there is no observational evidence that emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning has ever caused any warming.

    • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 3:00 PM

      Thread is getting long – so to be sure the post on carbon isotopes does not get buried.
      Look at the C12, C13, and C14 isotope changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
      Plant photosynthesis causes plant carbon to be relatively poor in C13 and enriched in C12. So a plant source or fossil fuel source adds more C12 to the atmosphere, diluting the C13
      C14 has a half-life of 5700 years. So a fossil fuel source will be extremely depleted – and the C14 in the atmosphere will decrease if the source is fossil fuels
      So a C13 plot showing its decline, note #1 the axis in the figure is a NEGATIVE LOG – so -8.2 is less than -7.5 and note #2 multiple Scripps sites arranged by latitude: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/17bcba60e4b0f9b732b53e03fda342472ea2a182478baebd3735df01808107e4.png
      With the billions of tons of carbon being emitted that decrease in C14 simply confirms that it’s fossil fuels https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/138a1b930d5a6eff7f59effb6a9f3d37948bbb3a3f653a83c51a34caaac15b97.png

      • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 3:11 PM

        Your false climate dogma talking points claiming that carbon isotopes show human causation are debunked in my comment below: https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/#comment-3785485471

        You still have provided zero empirical evidence for humans causation of global warming.

        • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 3:24 PM

          Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, just because you deny reality and science is no reason the rest of us should.

          • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 4:56 PM

            “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic”
            Poor angry James still throwing your childish name calling tantrum. So sad.

            “just because you deny reality and science”
            Perfect projection there James. I’ve denied no reality or science, YOU have.

            And yet ANOTHER reply with ZERO empirical science or evidence that humans have been the primary cause of climate warming as your climate cult dogma claims.

            • James Owens March 3, 2018 at 7:54 PM

              Poor RealOldRavingLunatic – still blowing all your smoke.
              Oh – on the 13C empirical data that I was showing you, another figure on several ice cores and then atmospheric (flask data) samples in Antarctica – Scripps data again.
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8e503860712580b3eb9488f963d0a3b71ea90f6a0babf3a34578d4ffc842180.png

              • RealOldOne2 March 3, 2018 at 10:54 PM

                “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic”
                Poor James, still in your frothing rage name calling tantrum. So pathetic, but so typical of scientifically illiterate science denying fanatical climate cult zealots when I expose your cherished climate cult religion is pure rubbish pseudoscience.

                “another figure…”
                Hahahahaha Models, models, models all the way down, and NO empirical evidence of human causation, just natural variability!

                Poor James, you STILL have failed to provide a single bit of empirical science that shows humans have been the primary cause of climate warming.

                Don’t you get tired of exposing your scientific illiteracy and making a total fool out of yourself?

                • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 8:19 AM

                  No models, RealOldRavingLunatic
                  Surface temperature changes thru measurements and observations
                  Tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes thru measurements and observations
                  Ocean temperature and heat content changes thru measurements and observations
                  Mountain glacier melting shown thru measurements and observations
                  Ice cap melting shown thru measurements and observations
                  Increase in greenhouse gases shown thru measurements and observations
                  Use of fossil fuel amounts shown thru measurements and observations
                  Changes in CO2 thru those fossil fuels shown thru measurements and observations (the Scripps isotope data that has been part of our discussions)
                  Changes in the amount of downward IR from CO2 has been thru measured and observed
                  Changes in the Hadley cells and cloud distributions consistent with warming shown thru measurements and observations
                  Changes in growing season times, frosts, and precipitation patterns consistent with warming shown thru measurements and observations
                  And others – but it’s empirical data from those thru measurements and observations – and it is those data that are used to build the models.
                  Those models do pretty well against the data. Here’s thru 2017 – the model uncertainty bands of the models are in different shades of orange and the actual measured temperature data line is in black. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf0b684c22f40563451315a519ca0009c72931245be4ae7c48602cfb5333aa75.png

                  • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 10:16 AM

                    “No models, RealOldRavingLunatic”
                    Still madder than a wet hornet and throwing your childish name calling tantrum. Sad.

                    And my what a reality denier you are, denying your own graph which explicitly says:
                    “Model with variable…
                    Model with variable…
                    Model with variable…”

                    And everything that you listed is only evidence of natural climate variability, and is ZERO empirical evidence for human causation of climate change.

                    Once again Poor James, you deny reality and present ZERO empirical evidence for human causation of global warming.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 10:58 AM

                      Yep, I point to and provide the empirical data, the measurements, and the observations and you deny reality that they exist. Not my problem – better look in the mirror once in a while.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM

                      As shown a moment ago, you point to symptoms and assign a cause, and think that you have accomplished something. All your supposed “data” is related to a theoretical imbalance of net energy flux into and out of the planetary system.

                      The planet has warmed a bit. However, evidence of warming says nothing about the cause of the warming. There is no observational evidence that the emissions of CO2 will cause … or, had caused … any warming at all. That is just conjecture, fortified by computer models. No evidence, just the fantasy imaginings of computer models.

                      Shepherd, T, 2014: ”The accepted evidence of anthropogenic climate change is based on multiple global indicators of change including surface temperature, upper-ocean heat content, sea level, Arctic sea-ice extent, glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, large-scale precipitation patterns (especially as reflected in ocean salinity), and temperature extremes (Figure 1a,b). All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature, and the changes are robust in observations, theory, and models 1.”

                      Shepherd, Theodore G. 2014 “Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections.” Nature Geoscience

                      http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/37752/1/NG_Perspective_Final_withfigs.pdf

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 11:28 AM

                      You might need to continue the opening intro to Shepherd. Let me help you:

                      The accepted evidence of anthropogenic climate change is based on multiple global indicators of change including surface temperature, upper-ocean heat content, sea level, Arctic sea-ice extent, glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, large-scale precipitation patterns (especially as reflected in ocean salinity), and temperature extremes (Figure 1a,b). All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature, and the changes are robust in observations, theory, and models1. Because of the consistency of the evidence and the physical understanding of the changes, both scientific and public attention is rapidly shifting from the detection and attribution of global climate change — by all measures a settled scientific question — to the quantification and prediction of its manifestations at the regional scale, together with an increasing demand for uncertainties.

                      Pretty much consistent with the 2017 US National Climate AssessmentReport https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

                      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.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 11:36 AM

                      Moot point. All that you have shown is that I cited a “believer” in AGW … If I had cited a fellow sceptic, you’d be railing and slamming the reputation of the scientist. What you have quoted does not lessen the integrity of the portion that I quoted:
                      Shepherd, T, 2014: ”The accepted evidence of anthropogenic climate change is based on multiple global indicators of change including surface temperature, upper-ocean heat content, sea level, Arctic sea-ice extent, glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, large-scale precipitation patterns (especially as reflected in ocean salinity), and temperature extremes (Figure 1a,b). All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature, and the changes are robust in observations, theory, and models 1.”

                      …which illustrates your foolishness in insisting that melting ice is yet another “evidence” of AGW. It is evidence of a (theatrical theoretical) imbalance in the energy budget of the planet. An imbalance that is sooooooo small as to be immeasurable. Ollila 2014: “The changes are so small that they can be analyzed only by computational methods.” Those computational methods are the “computer models” that are so very flawed.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:03 PM

                      “I point to and provide the empirical data, the measurements, and the observations and you deny reality that they exist.”
                      No, I just point out that they do not empirically show that humans have been the cause of any global warming. They just show natural climate variability.

                      Damn Nitpicker just exposed your fallacious argument too.
                      You also have totally failed to refute any of the science that he has presented.

                      You STILL have not provided any empirical science that supports your claim of human-caused global warming.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 12:45 PM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic, wrong and ranting yet again. Sigh.
                      Again, the direct quote from the US Climate Report – go argue with them
                      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

                      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.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 12:52 PM

                      “Poor RealOldRavingLunatic…”
                      Your childish angry name calling continues to expose that you can’t refute any of the empirical science that I’ve presented which proves you wrong.

                      And as I’ve shown you before, that US Climate Report is just making a CLAIM of human causation, which is totally devoid of any support from peer reviewed empirical science. I’ve challenged you to cite just one peer reviewed paper from that report that supports their CLAIM, and you have FAILED to provide a single one, because there ISN’T a single one.

                      Once again, you merely regurgitate your climate cult dogma talking points that are totally devoid of any empirical scientific support. Sad, but typical of you scientifically illiterate duped climate cult fanatics.

                      ps. I’m enjoying how Damn Nitpicker is also totally destroying all your fallacious arguments and exposing that you have totally failed to support your climate cult claims of human causation of global warming.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM

                      A clear statement backed by evidence and facts isn’t a claim.
                      Remember, if you move to a court of law, the scientists are saying AGW is real beyond any reasonable doubt.
                      It’s conclusions and a verdict they are making based upon the evidence of the science.

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 2:08 PM

                      Carefully picked scientists who represent the AGW claim; the same folks who bring us manipulated “data” …
                      There is no observational evidence backing CO2 as a cause for “Global Warming” … none. Only the abysmal “computer models” which are rife with documented problems.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 2:38 PM

                      Just the best scientists. And no manipulated data – that’s just the denier conspiracy lie – shame on you.
                      And tons of data and observations in those reports that continue to summarize the data – which grows every month, of every year.
                      Again, people like Spencer and Currey are debating the data – what they are debating is the projections being made from the data.
                      Here’s a Spencer blog that may help you a bit on how ridiculous denial has become:
                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 2:47 PM

                      The manipulated data does not have to be massaged very much, because the desired effect (justifying “Global Warming”) is only a minuscule increase … a 0.15% retention of the sun’s warmth.

                      “…people like Spencer and Currey are … debating is the projections being made from the data.”

                      Nothing I have posted reflects any future predictions, projections, prognostications, or clairvoyance. You are attempting to segue into another field … You know you have been defeated on the actual record. You’re running away from the challenge to post the observational science, that shows continued CO2 emissions will cause warming. You can’t post that, because it does not exist. We will not be distracted by shiny objects (Look, the thermometer is higher!) … Put up, or shut up.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM

                      Again, the manipulation claim is horse s**t.
                      Remember, you have eight major international centers doing the surface temperatures in parallel; two centers calculation the satellite data; several satellites monitor sea surface temps and sea ice and the data are in the public domain; glaciers are monitored by several satellites and by a set of different ground groups; ice caps have been monitored by several satellites using several methods; ocean temperatures use several methods although they have come to rely greatly on the 3000+ Argo buoys; plus over 60 ground stations monitoring both shortwave and longwave radiation – including the downwelling IR from the greenhouse effect; then satellites monitoring clouds, aerosols, top of atmosphere radiation, albedo … sure, there’s a conspiracy to manage all of that!

                    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 3:23 PM

                      There are a lot of kooky ideas out there, and Dr. Spencer throws a wet blanket on some of them.
                      BTW, I am still dry.
                      None of the arguments I use are kooky, and all are backed up by published statements in peer reviewed scholarly journals. No skeptical blogs are cited.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 5:42 PM

                      Good – glad to see you drop the manipulated data nonsense.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:18 PM

                      They aren’t “carefully picked” – they’re the cream of the crop; merit based.
                      And yes – tons of data backing greenhouse gases (remember CO2 has been only about 65% of the added radiative forcing from human emissions, there are others)

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 2:13 PM

                      “A clear statement backed by evidence and facts isn’t a claim.”

                      The problem is that the statement is NOT backed with any empirical evidence, proven by the fact that you can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of global warming.

                      “scientists are saying…”
                      They are saying it, but they have NO empirical data to support what they are saying, proven again by the fact that you can’t link or cite ANY empirical science that shows humans are the primary cause of global warming.

                      So yes, they are just CLAIMS, baseless and empirical evidence free claims.

                      Your “scientists” avoid the courts like the plague because they KNOW they can’t back up their claims with real world empirical evidence.

                      Yet ANOTHER total FAIL by James. Sad.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM

                      Of course it is – read the reports and stop trying to wiggle out of it.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:34 PM

                      Nope, none of the reports cite or quote any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of any global warming.

                      I’m still waiting for you to cite and quote a single such paper. You can’t, because none exists, or the IPCC would have quoted it in one of their reports. But the haven’t, because there are none.

                      Yet another FAIL. Aren’t you getting tired of losing?

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:43 PM

                      Oh they certainly do!!

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:54 PM

                      “Oh they certainly do!!”
                      Another false evidence-free claim.

                      If they do, then quote the exact words and link to the specific peer reviewed papers that do. You can’t, because there is NO empirical evidence showing that humans are the primary cause of global warming at any of those organizations websites.

                      You lose again.

                    • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:11 PM

                      Tons of evidence, RealOldRavingLunatic.
                      I’ve won every single exchange – you’re such an easy patsy.

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 7:13 PM

                      No you haven’t. You confuse heat and energy. There is no such thing as heat traveling from a cooler object to a warmer one making it even warmer. That violates the second law of thermodynamics.

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 8:05 AM

                      Doesn’t violate the 2nd law in any shape, form or fashion.
                      A cold object and a warm object are both “black bodies” that radiate heat.
                      So some of the cold radiation goes to the warm; some of the warm to the cold.
                      All the 2nd law says – the amount of the warm radiation leaving the warm body must be greater than the amount of the cold radiation coming in.
                      Does not forbid the cold body from radiating heat in a particular direction (toward the warm body).

                    • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 7:17 PM

                      “Tons of evidence”
                      Hahaha. You’re so delusional and dishonest. So if there is tons of evidence why can’t you cite or quote a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of global warming? Hahahahahaha
                      You LOSE!

                      “I’ve won every single exchange”
                      ROTFLMAO @ your delusions!
                      Sure you have. You’re a legend in your own mind!

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:34 AM

                      Poor RealOldRavingLunatic – you repeat your “one citation” strawman over and over and over.
                      Remember when we had a similar exchange over a year ago?
                      Here’s some insight for you to ponder – recall the IPCC updates its assessment, mainly using the most recent studies.
                      I went to the AR5 2013 report, the physical sciences volume. The IPCC largely updates their previous reports with the data that has emerged in the years between. Recall, that the previous AR4 was released in 2007 – so let’s look at nine years – the number of citations and the year of their publication:
                      2005….381 citations
                      2006….576 citations
                      2007….854 citations
                      2008….987 citations
                      2009….1191 citations
                      2010….1300 citations
                      2011….1313 citations
                      2012….1264 citations
                      2013….659 citations
                      That’s a total of 8,525 citations – would expect a few duplications among the chapters – but it’s a huge body of evidence across many fields coming together. And haven’t counted what came before 2004 where they are comparing older work with the newest.
                      So lay your strawman illusion of “single study” to rest.
                      Better start reading … you gotta lot of work ahead of you.

                    • RealOldOne2 March 5, 2018 at 8:20 AM

                      “RealOldRavingLunatic”
                      Yep, you’ve lost the science argument so you continue to resort to your childish name calling tantrum. So sad.

                      Hilarious clown dancing there! It’s not he number of citations, silly troll. It’s the fact that not a single one of those citations empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of global warming. Yet another JamesOwens FAIL!

                      I’m STILL waiting for you to cite just a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of global warming.
                      You can’t because there are none. You lose.

                      You’re such a JOKE! Hahahahaha

                    • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 6:09 AM

                      I’m getting the impression that RealOldOne is another one-note troll impervious to evidence and argument, not unlike BigWaveDave’s “there is no theory”

                    • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:27 AM

                      Correct – I have strung him along a while, but will be posting the data that I gave him just over a year ago on the citation dates in the IPCC AR5 and the number by year.

                  • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 10:23 AM

                    “No models … Surface temperature changes thru measurements and observations… Tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes thru measurements and observations”

                    What’s the difference between “measurements” and “observations” in your book? Rhetorical question. You imply that surface temperature, as reported by the big organizations, NASA, NOAA, GISS, etc … are not from models????

      • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM

        The increasingly negative value for the ratio between 12Carbon and 13Carbon is certainly helped along, by the burning of fossil fuels, but many MANY sources of atmospheric carbon also have δ13C that is more negative than the present atmospheric δ13C. Any source venting CO2 or Methane to the atmosphere, whose δ13C is more negative than the present atmospheric ratio, further dilutes the 13C and causes the symptoms which you chart, above.

        Major sources of carbon to the atmosphere, like terrestrial plant decay, range from -15‰ to -30‰, which dilutes the δ13C of the present atmosphere (about -8‰ now)
        While marine carbonates liberate CO2, their value of δ13C is more positive than the present atmosphere, but … marine plankton have a δ13C ranging from -11‰ to -32‰ relative to PDB, in δ13C. Oceanic degassing, which is three times more than the annual fossil fuel burning, probably has a significant impact on the observed trend.
        Whiticar, Faber, & School 1986 shows that marine sediment emits methane at δ13C at -600‰

        … An increasingly negative δ13C simply shows that a more negative δ13C carbon source is venting to the atmosphere. Francey 1999 showed δ13C was becoming more negative in the time period 1200-1450, and then, since 1750; Burning fossil fuel releases more negative δ13C, so it fits the bill for current times, but not for 1200-1450. However, there are many carbon sources, that vent to the atmosphere, that are more negative than the present atmospheric δ13C.

        Pisutha-Amond 2004 has a nice chart:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/532941c1d86f92a271139e80c3d082eedb18008a772eab3a0def2cd6b81571d9.jpg

    • Roald J. Larsen March 4, 2018 at 11:12 AM

      You do not pay much attention, do you?

      Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC has given up on those Playstation 64 “models”, even given up on the temperature series that are adjusted so much it doesn’t even come close to reality.

      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/

      As we can see, there’s no warming effect by CO2 and even less by CO2 from humans.

      It’s getting colder!!

      But that doesn’t stop criminal, “green” rent and grant seekers ..

      From the Heartland. Alarmist Climate Researchers Abandon Scientific Method
      http://www.newscats.org/?p=13713

      Because it has never been about the clima, it has always been about the money!

    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM

      Say James ,
      .
      Where is the water vapor figure ? The only wv figure used is the conversion of the few ppb from CH4 breakdown .
      .
      Seems odd considering water vapor is ~75% of all surface heat retention with clouds and ~ 90% of surface heat retention over open oceans ?
      .
      You do know Insolation and water vapor melted back the icesheets ,permafrost and tundra covering a third of the northern hemisphere thousands of years before CO2 rose ?
      .
      Has evaporation stopped recently ?

      • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:24 PM

        We’re talking the overall energy balance. Remember, evaporation is temperature dependent – the independent variables are what matter in the first instance.

        • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 6:42 PM

          Don’t be ridiculous . the TOA energy “balance” is affected most by water vapor surface heat retention .
          .
          Why is the largest single GHG not shown in that assessment ?

          • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:04 PM

            Take a look at the energy diagrams that Damn Nitpicker posted and think for a bit.

            • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 7:14 PM

              Let’s focus on the graph you posted first .
              .
              Where is the forcing for the dominant GHG ,water vapor ?

              • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:55 AM

                All in the downwelling longwave IR along with CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
                And if the temp rises, remember the Clausius Clapeyron equation.

  4. Immortal600 March 3, 2018 at 12:48 PM

    Dr. Wojick, over the target again, I see. LOL. The AGW kooks came out in force on this one.

  5. socalpa March 4, 2018 at 3:28 PM

    Great article ,and needs to be spread widely !
    I have to say that anyone who believes the government claims they can deliver better weather/climate/sea level conditions by 2100 is gullible with a capital G .
    .
    Trillions today ,for better weather (maybe) by 2100AD ?
    .
    Clearly a Fraud .. a well manicured fraud, all dressed up in PhDs and models .. but , just another fraud .
    .
    War on Drugs ..Trillions expended .. more and wider use of drugs .
    .
    War on Terror ,.Trillions expended ..wider and more frequent terror attacks ..
    .
    War on “Climate Change” aka “global warming” , 100s of billions expended ,zero effect on climate or weather .
    .
    There is only a war, on our wallets..

    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 3:37 PM

      socalpa thinks that any article that feeds his “AGW-is-a-fraud” conspiracy theory is a “great article” and every dollar spent on climate research is a “war, on our, wallets.”

      He despises farmers and the poor–two groups for whom climate change presents a looming challenge–obviously.

      He free associates, but understands nothing.He refuses to grasp the distinctions between projections and forecasts and even between climate and weather.

      He even recycles the easily and frequently debunked “‘Climate Change’ aka ‘global warming'” meme. And in the meantime displays his haplessly incompetent grasp of global politics.

      CFACT is a propaganda site, not a site for people who take science seriously.

      • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM

        And right on cue, my stalker arrives . mind reading and lying his stock in trade ! A typical Gullible I mentioned above !
        .
        Concerned about the poor ? How are the poor doing across the UK and EU with higher energy costs and “unexpected” harsher, colder winters across Eurasia for the past 25 years ?
        .
        Want to discuss the rise in excess winter deaths since 2000 after a 50 year decline ?
        .
        How about the rising rates of energy poverty ( sample 18% UK, 17% Germany ,25% Spain) resulting from carbon taxes and environmental fees ?

        • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM

          This is a public forum. You made a comment at the top of the thread. It is also a comment you have made before and includes phrases you have repeated hundreds if not thousands of times previously.

          It is hardly “stalking.” Indeed, your comment may be more accurately characterized as “spamming.” I do, of course recognize that this being Marc Morano’s personal playground (ergo: a safe space for science deniers, fossil fuel propagandists, and conspiracy theorists) your comments will be received more sympathetically than mind, even if your comments are spam.

          As to the poor, climate change disproportionally negatively impacts people in equatorial areas (which have a disproportionately poor population) and people who are too poor to easily relocate in the event of rising sea levels. There are low-lying agricultural areas, including in Florida and southeast Asia, that have already faced salt-water pollution, not to mention other places that have been affected by invasive species, the death of honey-bees, and other imbalances to the ecosystem.

          May I remind socalpa that those parts of Eurasia that have been impacted by “harsher, colder” winters are not the entirety of Eurasia or the northern hemisphere, and that global average temperatures have risen. Of course, I also recognize that he does not recognize global average temperature as a valid metric (though he puts a high priority on global ACE). .

          The world is getting warmer, not cooler.

          • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:10 PM

            So ,then you admit to targeted harassment ,in addition to stalking !
            .
            Following hundreds to thousands of posts of mine are you ? Why is that ?
            .
            The rest of your ridiculous eco diatribe and tribal signaling will be dealt with later .

            • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:21 PM

              “So” fail.
              This is a public forum. You made a comment at the top of the thread. Responding to it is not “stalking,” you paranoid twit.

              I have made several comments to other posters on this story.

              Recognizing the importance of ecosystem balance is hardly “ridiculous eco diatribe.” And if there is any “tribal signaling going on,” it’s obvious that that would be strongest among those who think that either Marc Morano (who once boasted, “the only science I need is political science) or David Wojick, who won’t publish anything in peer-reviewed forums, is a climate expert worthy of deference.

              • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:35 PM

                You admitted above to reading hundreds to thousands of my posts .
                .
                Why is that ?

                • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:37 PM

                  Because you have responded directly to me hundreds of times in various fora, as well as to a handful of other people I make a point of following (because I appreciate the care with which they present and defend the science) and I have seen how repetitive your scripts are.

                  You were banned from MMfA for spam.

                  • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:42 PM

                    I have asked you repeatedly not to reply to my posts to others . And I will not reply to you if you cease stalking my posts .
                    .
                    You can lie all you like about why I was banned from MMs or anything else .
                    .
                    Why don’t you “FO” as evenminded says ?.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:44 PM

                      You are such a delicate snowflake. You posted at the top of the thread, and spread lies and misinformation in the process.

                      This is a public forum. You don’t set the rules, even if most of the CFACT readers find it infinitely more plausible to believe in a decades-long worldwide conspiracy of lying scientists, universities, textbook authors, and peer-reviewed journals than in the possibility that a tightly cooperative network of bloggers, non-scientists, and PR hacks might be lying to them.

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:48 PM

                      Flagged for targeted harassment and spam .

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:49 PM

                      …says the lying spammer.

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:56 PM

                      “FO” stalker .

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:57 PM

                      Snowflake

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 5:09 PM

                      My posts really upset you ,don’t they ?
                      .
                      Why else would you read hundreds to thousands of them ? Chime in on every discussion ?
                      .
                      In a way ,your stalking and compulsive lying about me and the science is a compliment .. .
                      .
                      A sign of my effectiveness .

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 5:14 PM

                      You are once again entertaining delusions of adequacy, twit. Don’t flatter yourself.

                      You have responded to me hundreds (if not thousands) of times over the past 2-3 years, though not usually on this forum (mostly at MMfA, where you got banned for spamming). Responding to your responses is not “stalking.”

                      Nor is finding your persistent dishonesty, conspiracy theorizing, and vindictive attacks on leading scientists offensive.

                      I have told no lies about you whatsoever. But your paranoia and science-illiteracy leads you to lie about research papers so much that in many cases you are afraid to quote their titles or place them in the contexts provided by their very authors.

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM

                      More evidence of your pain ,and my effectiveness .
                      .
                      If I was not effective ,you obviously would not bother responding with these ignorant tirades ..
                      .
                      Just “FO” .. stalker . Lie about and to someone else. I have asked you before not to reply to my posts ..
                      .
                      But your rage won’t let you ,poor soul .. a slave to your ideologically driven anger .

                    • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:57 AM

                      You are only “effective” when posting in a safe space surrounded and supported by your fellow fake “skeptics” or, more accurately termed, conspiratorial science deniers.

                    • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 7:00 PM

                      Why are you stalking socalpa? LOL

            • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:15 PM

              It’s very obvious from his posts that he is just stalking and harassing you. He posts no science. Just dishonest statements about you. But when you are a member of a failing cult which is based on pseudoscience and flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, and you are angry that Mother Nature is proving your cherished religion is pure pseudoscientific rubbish, what else can they do.

              I have my own stalker who serially impersonates me, Dan aka ROO2. He got banned from sites for impersonating me as Real0ld0ne2, RealOldOne3. He has even impersonated me using my exact same username RealOldOne2 over a 100 times. So if you see any derogatory, defaming comments by my username, be sure to hover over the avatar to see if it has over 25.000 comments (me) or only about 100 comments (Dan aka ROO2, my serial impersonator). The documented history of his impersonation is found here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/#comment-867

              • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 5:31 PM

                I have exposed your stalker many times on many threads as a liar and impersonator ..
                .
                I caught him at it back on the Telegraph threads .
                .
                A sick liar and impersonator is that ROO2 , occasionally appears and vanishes once his habits are exposed .
                .
                I have exposed CML as a liar and misinformer so many times I have lost count ..this I believe produces the rage he now expresses .
                .
                I enjoy your posts .. Don’t stop .. the troll rage is proportional to your effectiveness .

                • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM

                  Sadly, dishonesty is the norm in their cult.

                  I enjoy your posts too. Keep up the good work.

                  The trolls really do get angry when we expose the dishonest practices like corrupting the actual measured data with unjustified adjustments, and when we post science that exposes that their belief system is not supported by empirical science. It’s quite satisfying watching them melt down and go on FULL TILT as they rant and rave.

                  Have you noticed Damn Nitpicker? He’s a new commenter who is doing an excellent job of posting lots of science that soundly refutes the trolls.

                  • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM

                    Yes I have !
                    .
                    Owens is trailing smoke and sparks as he crashes !

          • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:41 AM

            Who denies climate changes? No one I know! What we want to see is a cessation of taxation until we see its both just and necessary, its clearly not at present.

            • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:55 AM

              Science is not driven by taxation policy.
              Science denial clearly is driven by fears of taxation.

              Falling back on tired memes like “climate always changes,” as you appear to be doing, bespeaks rank ignorance of the anomalous aspects of current climate change, which even former skeptics like Richard Muller have attributed to anthropogenic CO2.

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:29 AM

                Ignorance perhaps, but yours or mine?

                No one should be taxed to reduce C02 output with the money transferred to low carbon countries, who buy cars and fuel as they are uplifted. The net result is a low carbon economy is changed to a C02 producer. Thats counter productive, should we not be honest and follow the low carbon ways of these Countries?

                Climate changes are well recognised over the years, 100 years ago the river Thames froze over every year and markey traders set up fairs. This was stopped when ice started thinning. 2000 years ago vineyards flourished as far North as York, now we have nothing so far North and only a couple of small ones in the South and West.

                • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 7:50 AM

                  You seem desperately confused between local/regional variations and weather conditions, on one hand, and global climate on the other.

                  Science is not determined by taxation policy.

        • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:02 PM

          You mention the UK, Germany, and Spain. What is the attitude of those nations’ governments and academic institutions toward climate change and climate policy? Are they arguing that AGW is a fraud?

          • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:06 PM

            The real question is ;
            .
            How much of their vulnerable populations are they willing to sacrifice to maintain carbon tax revenues ?

            • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:23 PM

              Everything goes back to your right-wing/libertarian conspiracy theories.

              Consider the possibility that they have more respect for science and scientists than fossil fuel propagandists and PR men have.

              Besides, the nations of he EU are famous for taking very good care of their vulnerable populations. They certainly do a better job than we do.

              • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:38 PM

                They should maintain policies driving an increasing excess winter death rate and massive increases in their energy poverty rates out of “respect” for climate science then ?
                .
                After 2 decades of these policies , what effect on climate has occurred “

                • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:42 PM

                  Climate science is driven by the need to research the climate and to find answers to unanswered questions. It is not driven by economic policies.

                  That would be your side, which rejects science whenever it collides with your pseudo-libertarian economic and political ideology.

                  Attributed to “increasing excess winter death rate” and “massive increases in their energy” policy to accepting the realities and negative effects of AGW (aka mainstream science) is moronic.

                  All three of those nations have programs that aid people and are effective at doing so.

                  • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:46 PM

                    How nice of them to “aid” people who are dying and impoverished as a result of their policies !
                    .
                    And, why then have the excess winter death rates continued high , and energy poverty rates increasing ?
                    .
                    What effect on climate have these energy tax and fee policies had on climate ?

                    • classicalmusiclover March 4, 2018 at 4:49 PM

                      Your claims about the populations of developed European countries are simply false. They do a better job taking care of their poor than we do.

                      You pseudolibertarians always reject science when it conflicts with your Randian ideology.

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM

                      You then claim there are no increases in energy poverty rates across the EU and UK ?

                    • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 4:52 PM

                      What effect on climate have these EU and UK energy tax and fee policies had on climate ?

                    • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:38 AM

                      True, it uplifts carbon free economies allowing them to buy manufactured goods so they become carbon producers. No less C02 but rather more.

                  • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:34 AM

                    Thats one approach but I think the hypothesis of C02 needs experimental support. Its certainly not yet proven. Political changes on a flawed idea is not good policy.

                    • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:52 AM

                      The “hypothesis of Co2,” by which I think you are referring to the greenhouse effect, received its first experimental support in the 19th century. It is now an established and hitherto uncontroversial part of atmospheric physics, described in every widely used atmospheric physics textbook.

                      It only became controversial after fossil fuel propagandists and PR men like Morano and Delingpole thought it would be profitable to sow confusion about it with the general public.

                    • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:16 AM

                      Nonsense, no one can show any viable mechanism of how the C02 molecule can be a cause of significant heating, let alone the man made bit. This is covered elsewhere by Prof Happer that its an interaction with two other molecules and infrequent.

                      ” In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]”

                    • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 7:23 AM

                      Sorry, but Professor Happer is completely incorrect on this issue, demonstrating that he is no expert on atmospheric physics. He also has recently been in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby, which may explain why he spouts such denial of the well-understood theory of radiative transfer.

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:29 AM

                You think the EU takes good care? The English disagree with you on that voting to leave the EU by 60%, so Tony Blair held his own referendum on face book where 66% supported leave clean and now.

                • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 5:50 AM

                  That is argument by non-sequitur, Brin.

                  I have three letters for you: NHS. Nobody in Britain is seeking to repeal the National Health Service, even after Brexit.

                  Brexit had nothing to do with the rejection of science or the rejection of the concept of a social safety net.

                  Was your reference to the “English” deliberate? Because the Scots and Northern Irish certainly were not in favor of leaving the EU.

                  • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:06 AM

                    What are you on about, Blair’s own referendum showed a larger 66% wanting to leave. Do you think that was English only?

                    • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 7:20 AM

                      A majority of Scots voters were opposed to Brexit.
                      England has a much larger population.

                      None of it had to do with the social safety net or with climate science/policy.

          • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:26 AM

            No, the EU is wedded to the idea we are responsible and the BBC over a decade ago started a policy of no airtime for any opposed to the PC new World order. Is that some sort of endorsement you think?

            • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 6:16 AM

              You sound paranoid and prone to conspiracy thinking.

              As a reputable journalistic organization, the BBC is under no obligation to give equal weight to counterfactual nonsense.

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:03 AM

                Your view with no more weight than mine. A bit quick with your insults methinks too.

                • Andy_Kreiss March 5, 2018 at 8:16 AM

                  Facts have more weight than lies. You need to learn that.

                  And stop crying about feeling insulted when you use phrases like “PC new world order”.

        • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:04 PM

          cml is just another of the pack of scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatics who lamely attempt to defend their failing climate alarmist religion with jihidist zeal. He can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that humans have been the primary cause of any global warming. It’s fun to expose his ignorance of science and inability to cite any empirical science that supports him though.

          • socalpa March 4, 2018 at 5:24 PM

            The troll pack that CML is part of is best described by the boy with his finger in the Dike tale .
            .
            Desperately trying to patch the holes in the sinking dangerous AGW tale .
            .
            They long for the days of Obama ,the “Clean Power Plan” ,Paris and no hiatus or increasing polar ice ..
            .
            They think somehow that if they spew enough bile at ,insult and attempt to belittle skeptics enough ,the “good old days” will return someday , and the Gospel according to M Mann will be followed again. .
            .
            Sad ,really .. maybe the Humpty Dumpty story is more accurate ?

            • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM

              Their climate alarmism religion is crashing and burning.
              Two decades now, 40% of all the human CO2 ever produced, over 600 billion tons worth, added to the atmosphere and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only the natural 2015-2016 El Nino which released stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere has caused any increase. Mother Nature is laughing at the foolish dupes who are peddling the false pseudoscience of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.

            • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:57 AM

              I hope so, the construct that a minor but essential to life gas is causing catastrophic changes needs putting back together if you can?

              400 parts per million is 1 in 2500. Take ping pong balls, paint one black and float them on a swimming pool. Now try and find the black one. The bit thats man made is only a fraction of the one ball.

              If C02 fall bellow 180 per million plants die, the slopes of Mount Etna which bubbles away constantly are lush with vegetation in sharp contrast to nearby Malta. Sicily is famed for its fruit and vegetables rather than Malta, Nelson bought fresh citrus produce from Sicilly to fight the disease of scurvy

              We might be better off with more rather than less for agriculture

              Managing Carbon Dioxide in Your Grow Space

              February 25, 2014 by fifthseason 16 Comments

              If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:00 AM

                The fact that Co2 is a necessary part of the biological respiration cycle does not diminish the fact that it is a potent greenhouse gas and has an acidifying effect in the oceans. These are just different properties under different conditions.

                There is no law of physics that says a small amount cannot have a big effect.

                There is also a bit of a contradiction in claiming that it can have negligible impact as a greenhouse gas but massive, world-transforming difference when it comes to plant growth.

                Talking about 180ppm and below is a complete strawman, because that is a condition that has never obtained since the very early history of the earth.

          • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:05 AM

            I am curious, with your persistent claims of “no empirical evidence,” even when it is provided to you, if you are as skeptical of evolutionary biology as you are of mainstream climate science.

            I find that people who harp on the idiotic claim that those who accept the mainstream expert view that AGW is real are pushing a “religion” often (though not always) are similarly skeptical of evolution, in somewhat similar terms.

            • Andy_Kreiss March 5, 2018 at 8:12 AM

              The Denier Cultists tend to get bashful when you ask about evolution, don’t they?

              Got some good laughs out of ReallyOld&Dumb’s “alarmist” and “religion “ comments here.

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:15 AM

                Yup. And what they often do is, like socalpa, call me a “religious bigot” for even asking the question.

                It’s transparently obvious that the denier cultists have a lousy understanding of how science actually works, and the role played by circumstantial evidence and observation, as well as predictive and explanatory power, in the formation of scientific theories.

                • Andy_Kreiss March 5, 2018 at 8:30 AM

                  But a Facebook “referendum” trumps reality.

                  • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:33 AM

                    Every so often I realize that CFACT/Climate Depot is the “belly of the beast” for this nonsense.

            • RealOldOne2 March 5, 2018 at 8:40 AM

              “with your persistent claims of “no empirical evidence,” even when it is provided to you…”
              No one has ever provided any empirical evidence that humans have been the primary cause of climate change to me, you included.

              “harp on the idiotic claim…”
              Yes, you climate cult fanatics make the idiotic claim that nature is no longer the primary cause of global warming which has been happening throughout the history of the planet and make the idiotic claim that humans are now the primary cause of global warming.

              I’m the sane rational scientist who asks you to back up your idiotic claims with empirical data, which is science.

              The fact that you can’t cite any peer reviewed science that falsifies the accepted null climate hypothesis of natural climate change proves you wrong.
              The fact that you can’t cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that humans are now the primary cause of climate change shows that you are wrong.

              Even though the empirical science shows you are wrong, you continue to believe in your false dogmas, which shows that you are doing religion, not science.
              Like it or not you are a member of a climate cult religion which is peddling false pseudoscience.

              This is recognized by 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.

              • Andy_Kreiss March 5, 2018 at 8:47 AM

                You’re really coming off as desperate and panicked.

              • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:47 AM

                You have posted much the same script to me before, already.
                James Owens has presented you with ample empirical evidence, as well as explanations

                You cite.three people:
                Richard Lindzen–who is no longer a professor at MIT and now works for the Heartland and Cato Institutes, both of which are conservative/libertarian advocacy organizations/think tanks, not scientific institutes. He has published little research over the past decade, and none of his former MIT colleagues agrees with him.

                Ivar Giaevar—not a climate expert, claims that he learned everything he needed to know about climate science from Googling around for about a day.

                William Happer–not a climate expert, but has been funded by fossil fuel advocacy organizations. Deliberately misinforms about greenhouse gases, saying things that even skeptic Roy Spencer would never say. Happer completely misrepresents the role that computer models play in climate research, which is actually dominated by data and field research.

                I also notice that you completely dodged the question about evolution.

      • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 5:22 AM

        Why do you argue for your faith in the man made climate change instead of the science? Is it that a faith requires no proof only belief?

        • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 6:02 AM

          Understanding the greenhouse effect requires no faith. It’s established science, regarded as uncontroversial by the scientific community.

          On the other hand, thinking that a decades-long worldwide conspiracy of lying and fraudulent climate researchers, textbook writers, and university science programs is more plausible than the possibility that people like Morano are lying to you requires a great deal of faith. Indeed, it reveals intense and deliberate ignorance, the Achilles heel of many faith-based beliefs.

          • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:00 AM

            A researcher in the USA over 150 years ago built two green houses, one clad in glass and the other in basalt crystal which blocks infra red. The temp in both houses was the same so it was not have been driven by infrared. Just how good is our understanding?

            • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 7:21 AM

              The greenhouse effect is not a reference to literal greenhouses.

              Consider the possibility that the world’s climate experts know more about the greenhouse effect than you do.

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:35 AM

                Then explain the mechanism clearly and simply please?

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 8:10 AM

                I do realise that I know very little holding an HND rather than a phd with honours. I do however reserve the right to question what seems illogical and wrong. That is how science progresses by questioning everything. (Albert Einstein)

                The use of the term Green House Effect is wrong and unscientific. Is it to suggest we all know a green house can get very hot so, panic panic?

                Say what you mean.

                • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:18 AM

                  The term has been used since the 19th century. It is a metaphor, an approximation, referring to the heat trapping effect of certain gases in the atmosphere and the relative transparency these gases have to certain kinds of radiation.

                  One could almost as easily have called it the “blanket” effect, but that would work less well intuitively.

                  Please try to treat it as a metaphor and not a reference to literal, physical greenhouses.

            • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 8:03 AM

              I have posted Professor Happer on the mechanism and he disagrees with your recitation of the creed. Until the theoretical mechanism is shown to be incorrect perhaps we might stop wrecking our industries. Unless thats the great idea?

          • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 7:34 AM

            If you are unable to show how the climate is changed by man made C02 in your own words, perhaps its because you don’t understand?

            Thats OK, but why should I follow a consensus of warmists who are unable to explain why they hold this faith?

            • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 7:56 AM

              Who said I was “unable” to. Greenhouse gases like CO2 function by “trapping” solar energy. Solar radiation passes through them and warms the surface of the earth. But they are opaque to thermal radiation, which has a longer wavelength, deflecting it in all directions, back toward the earth. Without that CO2, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice and rock, but when you rapidly increase that CO2, it has the effect of raising the temperature. This process is explained in every widely used atmospheric physics textbook.

              Why do you dismiss the world’s leading climate scientists as “warmists” who are unable to explain the science? Consider the possibility that it is because you get your science from right-wing political opinion pieces and misinformation outlets like CFACT

              I am curious: are you as skeptical of evolutionary biology as you are of mainstream climate science?

              You seem desperately unable to distinguish between science and religion, which is typical of the dismissives and denial cultists.

              • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 8:40 AM

                Actually I still question everything, you seem to have noticed there is a political divide! This political divide boils down to those who wish a no borders future of equality with a Nu One World Government. Ever questioned this?

          • Brin Jenkins March 5, 2018 at 8:35 AM

            Makes little sense, I have a faith, and no proof is required or offered.

            However when science is quoted, a hypothesis is no basis for any action other than to argue the points and carry out experimental work supporting it or not. Computer models have uses but not until the rules and data is verified, and its repeatable. Have you ever worked in any field of science? Starting from what you want is not the way to the truth, only observed results and facts.

            • classicalmusiclover March 5, 2018 at 8:42 AM

              Consider the possibility that much of the work of climate research involves field work, observations, and the collection of data. Models are simply tools for crunching that data and attempting to understand it better, and for producing probability-based projections of what is most likely to happen given the input of certain variables.

              Also consider the possibility that climate researchers follow the scientific method assiduously, false claims posted at CFACT notwithstanding.

              Indeed, it is the self-styled “skeptics,” many of whom engage in no direct research and do not submit their research (such as it is) to the rigors of peer-review that are more likely to “start from what you want.” For instance, starting from opposition to higher taxation as the basis for critiquing science.

  6. James Owens March 4, 2018 at 5:54 PM

    You’re typing too fast and not thinking.
    We are talking about the temperature anomaly or change from a given time period – the baseline. If you change the choice of that baseline, likely you change the anomaly.
    And reposting the silly WoodforTrees – sigh.
    As I noted before, we had a huge El Nino in late 2015 and early 2016 – and also remind you that for the overall heat budget of the earth – you need to include the ocean heat content (where over 90% of the heat from AGW ends up), the atmospheric heat, and the melting of ice (heat of fusion)
    Here’s the NASA/NOAA figure of monthly temps since 1980 – this avoids the yearly means which can mask important features. And the ENSO index is used to color a month – El Nino is red, La Nina is blue, neutral is gray. You can also see the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions. So you see the variations and the long-term climb of AGW.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c9814b1d92ed2420907e69f8a81623dd85ac6bd3a6ee65835ca71812dfe27965.png

      • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:27 PM

        You are doing a fine job posting science which refutes the climate alarmists.

        But those two diagrams are not correct “heat budget” diagrams, because there is no heat/thermal energy transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth (on a global average), because heat transfer is only from warmer objects to colder objects.

        NASA has another diagram that correctly shows this: http://slideplayer.com/slide/5320552/17/images/4/Source:+Nasa,+Atmospheric+Science+Data+Center.jpg

        Here’s another energy budget diagram that correctly shows the thermal energy/heat fluxes in the earth’s climate system: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg Notice that this diagram is from a peer reviewed paper, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, http://dugi-doc.udg.edu/bitstream/handle/10256/8489/secondlawthermodynamics.pdf?sequence=1 .

        Notice that it shows no energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.
        And notice that this paper was written specifically from the perspective of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

        Cheers.

      • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:34 PM

        Semantics – Heat budget not energy budget: Where does that accumulated heat from the imbalance go.
        A basic comparison figure to clarify – yes, the NASA energy budget is the overall balance for the earth – the heat budget or distribution is from that imbalance in the lower left. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2832bf28fa47157a6134cd0733148a6883077d3bf013ebdc8dd28115019ed259.jpg

        • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 6:41 PM

          Heat dissipates, it is not a conserved quantity. That is what’s wrong with you AGW believers. You want to interchange Energy and Heat as if they are the same thing. They aren’t

          • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:02 PM

            Actually, I was noting how we got our words crossed. Nothing more.
            Meanwhile, you may need to take a careful look at your comment.
            Hint: heat is thermal energy

            • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM

              Yes, it is. But not all Energy is HEAT. HEAT is NOT a CONSERVED quantity. Thermal energy can actually change states, so the energy remains but the heat doesn’t.

              You believe that the heat absorbed by a cooler CO2 molecule reflects back to the surface thereby warming the surface further. It doesn’t do that. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

              • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:13 PM

                Well, that “cooler” CO2 does it every second.
                Think you better read Spencer’s blog – no violation of the 2nd law.
                It’s a total misunderstanding of science that some deniers have swallowed whole and propagate.

                • Immortal600 March 4, 2018 at 7:16 PM

                  No it doesn’t. YOU are the one misunderstanding thermodynamics and if Dr. Spencer says that, he is also wrong.

                  • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM

                    Poor soul, there are about 60 research stations that work in a network. One of the things they do is record the amount of downwelling IR radiation from the greenhouse effect (those “cooler” CO2 molecules and others greenhouse gases). Most take a reading every minute, every hour, every day, thoughout the year. Many take a full spectra – so the wavelength bands of the various greenhouse gases are distinguished. Several are true research sites – with instruments good enough to see very small changes in the CO2 concentration that is emitting the radiation. And as the CO2 goes up, the radiation goes up – and in northern latitudes, with the Keeling annual curve, we can also see a drop in the summer. We also see the long-term rise in CO2 and the long-term rise in downwelling radiation as the greenhouse effect is increased.
                    So if you want to carry around a bit sign “Look How Stupid I Am” just keep saying that there can’t be a greenhouse effect because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
                    Again, Spencer lays it out in lay terms pretty well in his blog essay Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

              • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 8:17 AM

                Remember, the scientists have measured the amount of heat in the earth’s energy budget and know how it moves. They’ve observed those “cooler” CO2 and water and methane downwelling IR coming to the earth’s surface from the greenhouse effect and quantified it.
                So two choices:
                1. Your understanding and interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong.
                2. The 2nd law is wrong and is not really a “law”
                Now, guess whether #1 or #2 is right!

        • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 6:48 PM

          “Semantics – Heat budget not energy budget”
          No, not semantics at all. It’s obvious that you don’t even read my comments or even look at the posted graphics, or you would have seen that the peer reviewed paper that I cited and posted showed Fig. 5 from the paper that explicitly states: “Fig.5 Energy and entropy budget for the Earth. (a) Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components (ie., shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, (vertical turbulent heat transport), in W m⁻².”

          And your diagram that shows that 93.4% of the earth’s energy imbalance goes into the oceans is an admission that that 93.4% of the observed warming is NATURAL, because the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation. Nice OWN GOAL, which empirically shows that your claim that humans are the primary cause of global warming is WRONG, and that my correct statement that the overwhelming cause of global warming is natural is correct. Thanks for posting that empirical evidence supporting me and debunking you!

          • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 7:08 PM

            The greenhouse effect (the downwelling longwave IR) impacts the ocean surface where heat transfer to the atmosphere occurs – the skin effect.

            • RealOldOne2 March 4, 2018 at 7:15 PM

              Nothing you wrote changes the fact that the cold atmosphere transfers NO heat/thermal energy into the oceans, period.

              Ocean warming is natural, not anthropogenic. The 93.4% of observed global warming that is observed by the increase in OHC is empirical evidence that climate warming continues to be natural, just as it has been throughout he history of the planet. Thanks for calling attention to the fact that at least 93.4% of recent global warming has been natural.

              I just love it when you occasionally venture into discussing science because you always end up exposing your scientific illiteracy.

              • James Owens March 5, 2018 at 7:54 AM

                Poor RealOldRavingLunatic – your BS show continues, huh?
                Remember, the greenhouse effect and the earth’s energy balance ARE natural processes.
                The issue is that we humans are now emitted enough greenhouse gases to alter that natural process – increasing the greenhouse effect and causing an imbalance in the earth’s energy balance by increasing the overall heat content.
                So the natural exchange of heat into and out of the oceans has been changed – more heat is now going into the oceans – a heck of lot of it!
                30 times 10^22 joules – that;s zetta joules
                And if you look at the figure – no evidence of any “pause” – reference is at top of the figure
                https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/419613f9cc7a6694fb2436b51bec74cd66abb99505a9195c7cbc1d1a7ed9d148.png

      • James Owens March 4, 2018 at 6:41 PM

        This is coming into my feed as a second comment. So just in case, I’ll repeat my reply
        Semantics – Heat budget not energy budget: Where does that accumulated heat from the imbalance go?
        A basic comparison figure to clarify – yes, the NASA energy budget and others you show is the overall balance for the earth – the heat budget or distribution is from that imbalance in the lower left of most figures.
        PS – the downwelling longwave IR (back radiation) in these figures to the surface is the greenhouse effect, so I presuming you agree with that??
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2832bf28fa47157a6134cd0733148a6883077d3bf013ebdc8dd28115019ed259.jpg

    • Damn Nitpicker March 4, 2018 at 6:08 PM

      The magnitude of the anomaly does not change if you switch the chosen climatology … what you call the ‘baseline’ … it is similar to converting temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius. The magnitude of the temperature does not change … just the digits.

Comments are closed.