Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science

November 17th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

treesIn the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.

I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.

Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.

Why is that?

Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.

1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.

2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.

3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere).

4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.

5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.

As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:

corn-belt-temp-jja-thru-2016-vs-42-cmip5-models

Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?

And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?

The Policy Hoax of Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.

I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.

While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.

In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.

So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).

There were gasps from the audience.

You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.

But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.

As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.

As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.

So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.

Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.

In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.

The Dodgy Science of Global Warming

The director of NASA/GISS, Gavin Schmidt, has just laid down the gauntlet with President-elect Trump to not mess with their global warming research.

Folks, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

Gavin is playing the same card that the former GISS director, James Hansen, played years ago when the Bush administration tried to “rein in” Hansen from talking unimpeded to the press and Congress.

At the time, I was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/MSFC, and NASA had strict regulations regarding talking to the press and Congress. I abided by those regulations; Hansen did not. When I grew tired of them restricting my “freedoms” I exercised my freedom — to resign from NASA, and go to work at a university.

Hansen instead decided to play the ‘persecuted scientist’ card. After all, he (and his supporters in the environmental community) were out to Save The Earth ™ , and Gavin is now going down that path as well.

I can somewhat sympathize with Gavin that “climate change” is indeed a legitimate area of study. But he needs to realize that the EPA-like zeal that the funding agencies (NASA, NOAA, DOE, NSF) have used to characterize ALL climate change as human-caused AND as dangerous would eventually cause a backlash among those who pay the bills.

We The People aren’t that stupid.

So now climate research is finding itself at a crossroads. Scientists need to stop mischaracterizing global warming as settled science.

I like to say that global warming research isn’t rocket science — it is actually much more difficult. At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertianties as a tuning knob.

The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is dangerous.

And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.


671 Responses to “Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Greg says:

    Someone at WUWT suggested the following question be put to Gav’ :

    Are you prepared to discuss global warming with sceptics ?

    No? You’re fired.

    It’s well over time that these clowns started behaving like scientists if that is what they are payed for.

    If they don’t they can follow James Hansen into a quiet retirement of PRIVATE political activism and stop pretending to be research scientists.

    • It’s pretty hard to fire a government employee, unless they are a political appointment. Or unless they kill a polar bear.

      • RAH says:

        But you can create a position within their paygrade and transfer them to a weather station in some suitable place like say a small Aleutian Island or perhaps the Summit station in Greenland.

      • Tracy Bovee says:

        Is this not rank insubordination, however, Dr. Spencer? That seems to me to be definitive cause for termination. That said, I really like RAH’s solution: banish him … but I think I like McMurdo and the Antarctic – which stands in direct repudiation to Schmidt’s core existential hypothesis – rather than the Arctic.

      • RAH says:

        The other possible option is eliminate, reorganize, or reorient the GISS. Is not much of what they and in particular what Gavin and his team do redundant with NOAA?

      • Mark Luhman says:

        You left did you, since you view were not welcome. The laws need to be rewritten, we have far to much deadwood in government. Add on to it a shadow government not willing to accept the will of the people.

        • Arthur Stone says:

          The new ruling Trump has proposed that for every regulation added to the books, two existing regulations must be eliminated could be extended to bureaucrats. For every bureaucrat added to the bureaucracy two must be eliminated. The only function of bureaucrats is to create and enforce regulations. With a 2 for 1 reduction in regulations there isn’t as much need for so many meddling bureaucrats. Clearly this is not in the self interest of bureaucrats. So the gov’t will need to acquire a new kind of bureaucrat that thinks more like the private sector worker, lean, efficient, reduced costs, etc. For each one of these new kind of bureaucrats brought in two of the legacy bureaucrats will be eliminated. Trump will start at the top of the NASA organization, bringing in new leadership. Likewise those new leaders can start at the top of the existing organization by eliminating two people key to the propagating the hoax, starting with Gavin Schmidt.

      • As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

        Money is purely an abstract token, used in the exchange of physical resources. Money is 97% created as debt by private banks. Banks keep the supply of money short and as such are the real resource monitors of political Economy.

        Resources are the only limiting factor to economic activity, choices as between , Nuclear, Renewables, HydroCarbions from Fossil Fuels or from bio mass are factors of resource availability opportunity cost as between resources is the true limiting factor not the availability of money in a government sector or commercial budget. Whilst a fixed monetary budget does give rise to Opportunity costs in commanding resources it is wholly different and not coupled to resource availability and economic potential.

        This basic misunderstanding of what money and monetary measures are is a glaring cause for antipathy as between Alarmists, Warmists and Skeptics.

        A quote from Benjamin Franklin regarding money and political economy which could serve equally well to describe public discourse on Anthropogenic Global warming makes the point I wish to make quite succinctly.

        In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”

        a modest enquiry,
        ”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of ones Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
        Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
        To proceed, then,
        There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
        This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
        http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041

        Carbon is the new Gold, think about it?

        • Sorry, the first paragraph should be in quotes. Dr Spencer makes the statement above. I am a very big admirer od Dr Specers Work, my comment is not meant to challenge anyones scientific positions. My comment is, however, cogent to the widely held spurious views regarding money, money creation and money supply. Take this quiz and get an idea of how off beam or otherwise your own knowledge of Money is.http://snack.to/q7pm0txb

      • Scott says:

        But Dr. Spencer, it’s not hard to fire a government employee who will not disclose information that the public has paid for.
        Dr. Schmitt: What adjustments and why were they made to the raw data temperature readings?
        If we don’t get “scientifically sound” answers. I suspect President Trump could use that famous statement: “You’re Fired”….

      • Mark Luhman says:

        That one of our problem with our government right now, that problem is showing up everywhere, whether is global warming or the VA the incompetent are entrenched and the component are forced out. I hope Trump and the Republican congress will fix it, but I give that little chance.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Roy…”Its pretty hard to fire a government employee, unless they are a political appointment. Or unless they kill a polar bear”.

        Or unless they are convicted of falsely manipulating the historical temperature record.

      • Fox says:

        Roy, have you reviewed research conducted by IceGeoHeat? This may not be your feild of research but could be main contributer of accelerated glacier melt. Also research found the same under the Thwaites glacier in the antarctic.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Loved your rant. Positively the best evah!

        While it is hard to fire government employees there are a few agencies that do more harm than good…………these should be shuttered as soon as possible. You save a little money and eliminate the harm.

    • Eric H says:

      Gavin et al tried debating in the IQ2 forum and got a sound beating by Dr. Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Philip Stot. Gavin came across as smug and arrogant while Lindzen was confident and professional and Crichton was entertaining and a very good communicator. In fairness, Gavin got little help from the UCS debater he brought along (UCS what was he thinking?).

      • barry says:

        A public debate is a great idea for politics and optics – absolutely lousy way of enlightening or educating. The snappiest debater, the best rhetorician often wins, and truth is a very poor cousin to the affair.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Eric H…”Gavin et al tried debating in the IQ2 forum and got a sound beating by Dr. Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Philip Stot”.

        Schmidt blatantly refused to debate Lindzen one on one as a prerequisite of him taking part in the debate.

    • AlecM says:

      It is easy to show the IPCC’s claims are bad science. R D Cess in 1976 claimed Earth’s emissivity was the ratio of OLR (-18 deg C) to surface radiant exitance (+15 deg C): a high school howler; emissivity calculations require the same geometry and emission temperature. No professional scientist should have made that claim or allowed it to be published.

      The claim also set in stone the 33 K GHE datum AND implied 40% more SW thermalisation in the atmosphere than reality. Also in 1976, GISS modellers used a 1-D model with ‘negative convection’ to offset the 40% excess energy in order to back up Cess’ claims. That was science fraud; the 2nd law precludes negative convection.

      Hansen admitted this 24 years later to an AIP interviewer. He called it ‘a fudge’ but claimed the 3-D models are fine: not true – it’s the same fraud just hidden better. So, 40 years later we have little temperature change but the IPCC scam rolls on.

      PS underneath all these shenanigans is a deeply held belief by the fraudsters that Planck, Bose and Einstein’s radiative theory justifies the bidirectional photon diffusion argument leading to this weird energy transfer physics unique to Climate Alchemy. However, Planck, Bose and Einstein’s work only applies to a vacuum with a gap between the two emitters in radiative equilibrium. For equilibrium between a planetary surface and a GHG-containing atmosphere, there is no such gap. It is easy to show that there is net zero radiative energy transfer for all self-absorbed GHG bands, and direct transmission, or via clouds, to Space in all the ‘windows. Sorry Roy; the pyrgeometer is no proof of such real radiative fluxes – you’ve been conned too.

      Time to shut down this fraud and pension off the unprofessional people who run it for their own careers and to deceive politicians and public.

  2. RW says:

    Well said, Roy.

  3. Curious George says:

    These guys believe their own propaganda.

  4. jerry l krause says:

    Hi Roy,

    For your information.

    Solar Radiation Sufficient! No Greenhouse Effect of Certain Atmospheric Gases!

    [snip]

    Sorry, Jerry, but I’ve lost interest in debating with the no-greenhouse-effect crowd. -Roy

    • micro6500 says:

      Hi Roy,
      Did my post get snipped because of this or did the internet eat it?
      If it was snipped, there is a greenhouse effect, it just doesn’t matter at least for cooling at night.

  5. Most hoaxes do have elements of truth – the truly fantastical are easily discounted. So yes, global warming is real in principle, but at the same time a hoax of exaggeration.

    Some of that exaggeration is in extent of warming.
    But most is in what that warming means ( as noted extreme weather has decreased with warming to date ).
    And also the exaggeration comes from the human tendency to imagine the worst risk and discount all benefits.

    • Mike Restin says:

      The most arrogant is believing they can control all of earth’s weather/climate by tuning the CO2 control knob hidden behind the curtain.
      They’re willing to use any amount of force and spend any amount of money and human capital to have control of the CO2 knob, while they hide behind the curtain and shout their threats.
      They can’t prove anything’s wrong with the climate nor have they shown that they can fix it.

  6. John Hultquist says:

    Thanks Roy.
    I made a comment on No Tricks Zone (post was about Li-ion batteries) but with minor changes, it fits here too:
    In the USA about 17 Million vehicles are being produced this year. Worldwide the number is 93 M. Next year, 98 Million. Then 102 M, 105 Million, with the year 2020 still higher. The average age of all light vehicles on the road (USA) now stands at a record high of 11.4 years. (Other references may have different numbers.)
    Most of the above use internal combustion engines.

    Incremental changes will happen in developed societies, including the cities and modes of transport. Big changes, not so much. In 5 years or 10 years expect places to look and feel much like they do today.

    Landscapes are in place hardened by concrete, pipelines, electrical grids, sewers, and legal agreements. Change is legally, physically, and financially difficult.

    Many people do not understand the concept of scale. Arithmetic is not difficult, but does require a little more work than many are willing to do. One can easily show that many proposed schemes will not work. One may argue about the actual numbers, but the world is not going to run on lithium-ion batteries, wind mills, nor solar panels.

    • Michael R says:

      Amen to this. Just as a fun exercise, take a look at current solar collector efficiency per sq.ft. and compare that to the electrical usage in the U.S. I did this a few years ago and saw that 20% of the landmass would have to be covered to generate the electricity needed. This was before Germany announced (celebrated) that they are up to 11% of the nameplate capacity of their installed systems.

  7. Guess what global warming is ending and it will be shown to be a hoax.

    This period of time when viewed in the historical climatic record is in no way unique. It is not even close if anything I would say the period from 1850 – present is one of the most stable non changing climatic periods ever.

    This has a good chance to change going forward.

    I am very bullish on the present temperature distribution in the N.H in that much of the warmth is all concentrated above 70 N latitude where it is below freezing anyway and brutal cold is common between 45 to 70 N, with the exception of N. America but this should change soon.

    AO should be very negative going forward.

    I always said a warm Arctic leads to global cooling we shall see.

  8. sp says:

    Right on, Dr. Roy!

  9. Greg Sullivan says:

    Roy,
    You say that the rate of warming has been half that predicted, yet Christy, in the Dec-15 senate hearing, says the rate has been an average of a *third* of that predicted. Can you explain the discrepancy?

    • An Inquirer says:

      Greg, Dr. Spencer is being generous. I would say that Dr. Christy is even being generous. I could easily make the case that the rate of warming is a quarter of what is being predicted. In fact, if one looks at actual temperatures — instead of adjusted temperatures — at stations with high rate of compliance, then one could say that the predictions were 100 times more than actual trends.

    • Depends on whether you are talking about mid-troposphere or lower troposphere, and whether it’s tropics-only. Not sure which he was referring to.

      • Bindidon says:

        From Christy’s testimony on 2016, Feb 2 (page 5):

        <>

        Source:
        HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf

        • Bindidon says:

          Ive shown here that for the global bulk atmosphere, the models overwarm the
          atmosphere by a factor of about 2.5. As a further note, if one focuses on the tropics, the
          models show an even stronger greenhouse warming in this layer. However, a similar
          calculation with observations as shown in Fig. 3 indicates the models over-warm the
          tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3, (Models +0.265, Satellites +0.095,
          Balloons +0.073 C/decade) again indicating the current theory is at odds with the facts.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Greg Sullivan…”Christy, in the Dec-15 senate hearing, says the rate has been an average of a *third* of that predicted. Can you explain the discrepancy?”

      Dr. John (not the musician)has to abide by the numbers when he quotes a trend. He does not have the luxury of explaining the trend and what it means. From that perspective he has to report a trend in UAH data from 1979 – present as rouhgly 0.14C/decade.

      He has already explained in the UAH 33 year report that the trend is more likely 0.09C/decade since much of it (18 years) has been in a region of re-warming from cooling by volcanic aerosols. True warming, according to the 33 year report, did not begin till late 1997 when a super El Nino drove the global average sky high.

      Since 1998, there has been no trend to speak off even though temperatures have oscillated like a yoyo. The 0.25C approximate level at which the flat trend has sat for nearly 20 years is not warming related to anthropogenic emissions, IMHO. It seems to be an artefact of the 1998 EN.

  10. steve ridge says:

    This claim is false:

    “Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low.”

    … at least according to Gallup.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

    Dr. Spencer, please provide a source for your claim.

  11. OleKlemsdal says:

    Brilliant written, thank You! I have a slight hope that I can make som of my friends and family read this to give them some balance in their views on this topic. I sincerely hope you stay in there.
    Best regards from the all to political correct Norway.

  12. David Gray says:

    As an engineer, I also note, as have many others, the error bounds on the measurements are more than problematic. The corn belt graph above shows an increase in temperature of about 0.04 deg F over a period of 120 years. WHAT?? Does this come from mercury thermometers which have difficulty getting a reading accurate to within 2 deg? And where are all these thermometers, and who has been calibrating them all these years? Removing or changing even one of them, depending on how many go into the plotted data, and can change the overall outcome by more than 0.04 deg. Thus, within measurement error, the so-called global warming, even though perceived as minor, could in fact be global cooling.

    Thankfully, we now have satellite data with requisite accuracy, which, though recent, can at least determine a baseline for the future.

    As you have pleaded many times, moving public policy with such flimsy evidence (either way) and flimsy models, is not reasonable to say the least.

    Thanks for all you do to keep the science-for-hire world honest. The alarmist community should rename itself Spectre.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      You can’t honestly think, your argument about error bars will have an effect, after all, you are talking logic, not emotion. I am constantly reminded by my wife how much logic gets me into trouble after what does that have to do with the conversation.

  13. Nate says:

    Roy,

    Couple of things;

    1. Where are you getting the corn-belt data? When I got to NOAA Climate at a Glance, the slope for corn belt is much higher than what you are showing (for 1965-2016 it is 0.28 C/decade)

    2. The corn belt is a very tiny fraction of the globe. Would expect big big error bar on such trends

  14. Whatever says:

    Can I ask a tangent question on the ozone hole that has been bugging me for awhile?

    It’s well established the Earth is a giant spinning sphere. The equator at 25,000 miles circumference is moving at over 1000 miles per hour while the poles are stationary. The atmosphere itself is roughly 80% N2. Based on that, my expectation would be that atmosphere is going to act as a centrifuge. So particles heavier than N2 will be found in greater abundance near the equator and in lower abundance near the poles – which would include 03. So my question is would the Earth’s rotation cause a gradient in O3 in the atmosphere and if so, what would the expected gradient be (if not so, what am I missing)?

    I have tried to google this question and have found basically nothing on the subject. That surprises me because it seems like it should be one of the first questions asked. If anyone has some insight I would appreciate it.

    • bea says:

      The Earth is MORE than a spinning sphere. Its atmosphere has a large throughput of energy from the sun; and a general situation of turbulent mixing exists which dominates the sort of effects you mention.

      Ozone is a little different from the stable gases, since it is produced and destroyed continuously and all this is local and seasonal.

  15. I don’t think “hoax” is an insightful word to use. Eventually if you’re observant and get old enough, you begin to appreciate that of matters that are uncertain, nearly everyone is wrong nearly all of the time. That is the normal state of human affairs.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      The hoax is in not recognizing that and admitting to that fact. Sure people are wrong most of the time on matters of uncertainty but the hoax is in not recognizing the uncertainty no matter what your point of view is.

      Skeptics are right this is being driven by a large number of political perspectives from world government to extreme environmentalism opposing even minor change to fears of running out of fossil fuels. All that is evidenced by refusals to debate the issues, attempts to silence the opposition, claiming settled science. The only guy I know who really studied the basis of it was Dr Roger Revelle and he never ever said it was certain and in recorded videos he always was careful to point out that the science was not settled. Its hard to fathom why any scientist would buy wholesale into the idea without having some other interest at heart.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Yeah, Will, unless the science is confirmed by launching a rocket or the creation of a gadget, then in all likelyhood it is wrong. Hard science has definitve answers. Soft sciences don’t. i can still remember back in the day when they used to say that if you ate more than two eggs per week then YOU WILL DIE(!!!)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        fonzarelli…”…if you ate more than two eggs per week then YOU WILL DIE(!!!)”

        That myth came from the Framington study of the mid-50s. Within ten years most of the scientist making the claim had changed their minds but the myth still persists.

        People having gone through a heart attack are put on statins to reduce cholesterol. The statins are far more dangerous to the human body than the cholesterol.

        Just before his death, Linus Pauling was involved with a study related to that with Matthias Rath. They concluded that lipoprotein A was the issue. Pauling suggested a combination of 3 grams vitamin C with 3 grams lysine to combat the problem and many people have made miraculous claims about the effect of the combo on heart disease.

        Of course, we’ll never hear about that in our life times from the medical community, even though Pauling’s views on large doses of vitamin C and cancer have been adopted by the National Cancer Institute.

    • Rick Kargaard says:

      Nowhere is that more obvious than when we try to make informed prediction. Note that almost everyone was wrong when predicting the outcome of the U.S election.
      Predicting a warmer future on the basis of irregular and minute warming over the past 120 years or so is pure folly, especially when much of the data used to show past trends is suspect as to accuracy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Rick Kargaard…”Predicting a warmer future on the basis of irregular and minute warming over the past 120 years or so is pure folly…”

        The IPCC stated clearly in the 3rd assessment literature that future climate states cannot be predicted. Then they turned to unvalidated climate models to propose future climate scenarios based on probabilities. The IPCC does not use the word ‘prediction’ when speaking of future climate states, they talk about ‘projections’.

  16. darrylb says:

    As retired a high school chem/physics teacher, I have been very upset at what I once thought was a bastion of integrity.
    Regrettably money, ego, power and ideology seem to be more pronounced in the area of climate and related studies than in the norms of society.

    In addition to the pathetic process of –‘If the results don’t match the hypothesis, change the results’– there is, I feel another fundamental error in the climate science community as demonstrated by the IPCC.

    The organization was given a two part task, and in order to exist, it had to keep verifying both parts.

    1) Is the planet warming?, check that, Is the planet undergoing a climate change? When hasn’t it?

    2) The second part was, IMO, fundamentally a function of the wrong question which was, If there is a change, is it being caused by GG, mostly CO2… WRONG QUESTION
    the legitimate question should have been ‘If there is a change, what is the cause of the change?

    I would expect that every contributor here could state at least dozens of causes, and add to that the fact that change has always taken place, with no anthropological causes.

    To exist, the IPCC and much of the entire industry had to follow a scientifically antithetical procedure, knowing that change has always occurred. The rule has been publish or perish. Too often the results were planned before the study began. Example; the hockey stick.

    Publish or perish has also invaded the MSM. Where the too often ‘Bad news is good news, and good news is no news.
    Sad!

    • Rick Kargaard says:

      I saved this quote from a scientist.
      If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.
      Science today seems to be based on the best guess and the assumption that it must be right because they can’t prove it wrong.
      Sound a bit like religious fundamentalism to you?

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Hmmm. Looks to me like controlling the outcome through the Terms of Reference. We know, too, that the IPPC does not follow its own policies for ‘peer reviewed studies only’ and has misrepresented the educational level of some working group members.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      My axiom in life is if you ask the wrong question you will always get the wrong answer, it is too bad most of the human race always ask the wrong question. Our media is the worst offenders, politician next and government funded scientist are not far behind, all though is might be had to fault the government funded scientist since the politician alway seem to fund the wrong questions.

  17. Brant says:

    One of the most effective ways of combating climate change is to stop coming up with ways to pay for combating climate change.
    Carbon taxes ruin an economy. They lead to corrupt trading.

    But the fact of the matter is that we are at historically low levels of CO2. Its been as much as 5000ppm, right?
    The earth started as a rocky ball. 95% of the species that have existed were gone before man got here. It will survive with other species.

    The solar system travels through the local bubble and as it travels the plasma density of the local cloud changes which causes fluctuations in the solar output specifically the “solar wind”, which delivers energy to the earth that is not radiation. This causes the input energy of the earth to vary on a greater scale than mans influence.
    The Pedersen currents above the poles drag cold air(plasma-gasses) down to the poles in the form of neutral and ions. The ions probably recombine into neutrals.. This I believe causes the ice caps..

    Here is a diagram that I drew of the solar system traveling through the Local Bubble. The features are reasonably accurate except for the angle on the solar system.
    This is looking inward to the galactic center towards Loop 1.
    https://app.box.com/s/lf0ttitirc9p5mpedp6vhu0egw1achgt

    3D image of the Local Bubble from Wiki. The Sun is pretty much right in the middle. Goulds Belt goes around the Bubble at the waist.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Bubble#/media/File:LocalBubble.png

  18. MikeN says:

    You would think they would realize that challenging Trump is just going to make them a target. Why not just say we are looking forward to working with him?

    Thank you Gavin for ensuring that Trump would not abandon his position on this issue.

    • RAH says:

      Nor will any screaming from the press or the green blob dissuade him. I think that so much stuff is going to hit the fan so fast when the Trump administration gets going that the MSM will be overwhelmed. They will not have the space in their newspapers or magazines or the air time to effectively scream and kick about it all. Climate change being near the bottom of peoples concerns will be pushed essentially out of the picture of the general media getting relatively little print or air time because so many other things that people really care about will be changing at the same time. So it will be the blogs and specialty publications that relatively few of the general public ever read where the arguments will take place.

      IOW I think the leftists and their press are going to be on the receiving end of a bum rush like they never imagined.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        That sounds like a reasonable prediction to me. Who will care when government entities such as the EPA and GISS are defunded?

        It won’t matter given that more important issues such as jobs, taxes and foreign policy are being managed by businessmen and soldiers. The media won’t have time to focus on trivia.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      MikeN…”Thank you Gavin for ensuring that Trump would not abandon his position on this issue”.

      It was an issue before Trump. Both NASA and NOAA are under investigation by a US Senate committee.

  19. John Moore says:

    I would like Dr. Spencer to address the amount of funding for climate prognostication, or whatever one calls the research into CO2 effects on future climate.

    How much is enough? Is more money into modeling just a waste, as might be the case if chaos really does make far projecting finite element modeling meaningless? I have seen strong arguments that ensembles do not help at all with that problem when forecasting past a few months.

    Would the money be better spent on other research, for example, numerical weather prediction improvements, where the US lags the EU?

    And, of course, there is always the cheap shot: if the “science is settled.” then why are we funding the research at all.

    But, that is a cheap shot.

    • Lewis says:

      It may be cheap, but it is an excellent point.
      Hopefully the idea makes it to the powers that be in the new, improved, administration.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      This is not a difficult problem for the businessmen who will play a major role in the Trump administration. They are used to “Zero Based Budgeting” which is entirely contrary to government budgeting which takes last year’s spending as the basis. Until now, the discussion has been about how much next year’s budget will increase.

      Under zero based budgeting every penny of expenditure has to be justified……………some government organizations will fail to provide benefits commensurate with the money they propose to spend.

  20. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer,

    Well said.

    NASA? Rocket science?

    “NASAs budget includes more than $2 billion for its Earth Science Mission Directorate, which works to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. NASAs other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.”

    If this is true, it shows that putting a very average mathematician in charge of NASA’s toy computer games division is the best way of diverting billions from real scientific research.

    Who needs stinkin’ experiments? This is science?

    Only joking, of course!

    Cheers.

  21. Vincent says:

    I just received a letter from my electricity biller to inform me that my feed-in tariff (from my solar panels) had been increased from 44 cents per kWh to 50 cents per kWh, and that this rate will apply till July 2028, almost another 12 years.

    I’m very pleased because this means that the total cost of installing the PVP system, including the repair costs of a malfunctioning inverter a few years ago, will likely be more than covered.

    The goal of alternative and renewable energy systems is not just that they are cleaner, but eventually, as technology progresses, that they are also cheaper, that is, more efficient.

    Comparing the price per kWh of fossil-fuel generated electricity with PVP-generated electricity, can be misleading. The cost of fossil-fuel generated electricity must include the cost of all the environmental damage which results in the mining of the fossil fuels, plus the health consequences of a polluted atmosphere that we breathe.

    Initially, any new technology is expensive. Consider the example of the digital camera. However, with sufficient encouragement from governments, or from consumer demand, as was the case with the digital camera, the new technology can become amazingly efficient.
    That’s progress.

    My dream is to have the entire roof of my house covered with an advanced and durable PVP system, and own an electric car covered with a ‘paintable’ PVP material, plus a spare car battery which can be cheaply recharged from my solar panels on the roof.

    The future of mankind depends on our imagination and our energy supplies.

    • DHR says:

      You get paid fifty cents per KWH for electricity from you panels? Good grief. Your local government seems to have gone mad. I pay about 12 cents per KWH delivered by my local utility. This compares with the national average of just over 10 cents delivered. Hawaii is the highest in the US at about 33 cents but thats because its diesel powered. At fifty cents, you are being subsidized about 40 cents per KWH by your neighbors . This is simply the result of collusion between your government and the panel industry to set feed-in rates and subsidies very high at the expense of everybody else. it has nothing whatever to do with the wonders of renewables.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      Every watt you produce has to be back up by a conventional power plant, you add are adding nothing to help us out only add to our cost the average ratepayer pays. I hope Trump end this insanity and you will have to bear the true cost of your stupidity. I really hate people who dig into my wallet and think they are doing me a favor.

      • fonzarelli says:

        Mark, i know a recovering alcoholic who claims he used to be one who would “steal your wallet and then help you look for it”. (needless to say, when i’m around him i keep my wallet in my front pocket… ☺)

    • gallopingcamel says:

      While I am a big fan of rooftop solar as long as the subsidies continue, the subsidies are “Unsustainable” because there are underlying problems with solar generation that can’t be fixed by better technology.

      Thus it is that the UK has slashed its feed in tariffs as has Spain.
      https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/15/solar-power-in-florida/

      When the subsidies are removed the organizations that depend on them collapse. Take a look at the “Wreck of the Carizzo”.

      My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
      Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
      Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
      Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
      The lone and level sands stretch far away.

      P. Byshe Shelley, 1818

    • Streetcred says:

      “The future of mankind depends on our imagination and our energy supplies.”

      And the future of your paid feed-in tariff depends on everybody else being able to pay the taxes to feed your greed.

      It is time that the calculation of tariffs were adjusted to create a fix ‘infrastructure’ fee and a separate ‘generation’ fee. That, I’m sure, will address the inequity felt by the consumer to facilitate your solar voltaic folly.

  22. DHMacKenzie says:

    Dont post….last ‘uncertainties’ is mis-spelled.

  23. Greg G. says:

    It amazes me how often a supposed PhD as Dr. Spencer makes such misguided statements about uncertainty and the actions to address uncertainty.

    Here is a simple hypothetical example, which is unfortunately not really hypothetical in many US areas (see below).

    First we have to establish a basic fact of science. If the average temperature of the globe rises for any reason, then sea levels will rise. Water expands when it warms above 4C (if you don’t believe this, then stop reading here), and this is the largest single contributor to sea level rise. Melting ice sheets and glaciers will contribute too, and the extent is uncertain, but no reasonable person can deny that warming water will cause sea level rise. 2C rise in surface temperatures may sound great to many in cold climates, and we can sing the praises of a greening earth all we want, but the grim reality is that (depending on how you define it) millions to hundreds of millions of people globally live within regions that will be affected by sea level rise.

    Now the thought experiment:

    Suppose you own ocean front property that currently is 1/2 meter elevation above the current high flood mark from severe storms. You plan on retiring there in 20 years and living the good life. But your local palm reader tells you that in 30 years, the oceans will rise 1/3 of a meter. Dr. Roy tells you she is generally correct, but might be off in predictions because her skill level is uncertain. Should you be worried about your beach house and retirement plans? Dr. Roy says no! Don’t buy flood insurance because that is expensive and will kill your economic growth. The palm reader could be wrong and the sea level will only rise 1/6 of a meter and all will be fine.

    But you should be very worried. The palm reader could be wrong in either direction. Your place could be under water with total loss. Then you have to retire in your son’s basement in Kansas.

    Sea level rise in places like Miami where the porous earth prohibits any type of sea wall defense is already regularly causing flooding during high tides. The economic cost of “moving” South Beach Miami is mind-boggling, and to compute a global cost is even more so. Estimates range in the single to 10s of trillions of dollars. Not doing anything about it from an investment point of view is foolish.

    One last analogy: Suppose somebody asks you to play “Russian Roulette”. They will give you a million dollars if you put the gun to your head, pull the trigger, and nothing happens. If you are “unlucky”, and the bullet goes into your head, you lose. Would you take the bet? Roy is telling you that the IPCC and mainstream climate science is wrong, there is no bullet in the gun. He says that you should pull the trigger, because a million dollars is great, and even if the scientists are a little right, then maybe nothing bad will happen. The climate scientists are saying that the gun has several bullets, but they are not sure how many.

    So go ahead, pull the trigger.

    • Lasse says:

      Greetings from Europe where Netherlands have the solution if needed!
      Today the rise in sea-level is 3 mm/year in Miami as much as it was before.
      Study the periodical change.

    • fonzarelli says:

      First you have to establish that your 2C of warming is actually going to happen. We’re nearly at half way to a doubling of CO2 with only .8C of warming, none of which is distinguishable from natural variability. No matter how much people say to the contrary, AGW is still just guess work. We have no idea how much warming actually is (or isn’t) caused by ACO2…

    • Mike Flynn says:

      “Monday’s earthquake raised parts of the Kaikoura seabed by more than a metre, providing a unique insight for scientists.”

      Of course, the fact that the Earth’s crust is in constant motion escapes the GHE enthusiasts. East coast of US subsiding? Must be due to GHE sea level increase! Himalayas rising by 3 cm per year? Due to evil GHE, no doubt.

      Life goes on.

      Cheers.

    • tonyM says:

      Building within half a meter of past high tide storm surge is folly; Fukushima is testament to this. People build on the slopes of Vesuvius but I doubt if anyone takes out insurance. The bliss would be in selling them all the insurance they want and declare bankruptcy when it erupts.

      In terms of risks and gambles one would be a complete fool to buy expensive insurance from a company with greater than 99% chance of going broke. The plethora of failed climatology predictions show CO2 mitigation to have less than 1% chance of solving anything or reducing any risk by much if at all.

      It is expensive CO2 insurance when the premiums far outstrip the supposed damage. The World Bank alone demands $89 trillion. No doubt Pres-elect Trump will surely be persuaded by your argument and will shower more money onto this gravy train insurance!

    • Robert Austin says:

      So Greg thinks that the oceans are in some kind of thermal equilibrium and a slight change of atmospheric temperature will significantly perturb the oceans temperatures. In fact, the oceans have been warming since the end of the last glacial and will continue to warm until we plunge into the next glaciation. In other words, when the oceans stop warming, we are in trouble. Greg then plays the lame “precautionary principle” argument. Greg, when the cost of the insurance exceeds the cost of the damages, you don’t insure.

    • Mike Wilson says:

      Well maybe you need to go talk to the palm readers about how THEY have presented the uncertainty instead of Dr. Spencer! The palm readers did not state their case about uncertainty as you have described. They have claimed every chamber in the gun is loaded, the science is settled, the debate is over and to question this makes one a DENIER.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Greg C…”First we have to establish a basic fact of science”.

      None of the so-called facts you have listed have taken place since 1988 when the catastrophic global warming ball got rolling. That’s nearly 30 years, how long will it take for your catastrophe to unfold?

      Is 30 years with no appreciable warming grounds for comparing that to Russian roulette? Sounds to me like you have an emotional investment in your theory.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Sea level rise slowed down 5,000 years ago but it still amounts to almost one foot per century:
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png/375px-Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    • Streetcred says:

      Government and academic ‘Climate’ scientists have been spinning the chamber and holding the gun to everybody else’s’ heads … time to hold it to your own head!

  24. Milton Hathaway says:

    Global warming used to be a hoax, but it has since devolved into a scam. “Save the earth” has become “give us your money”. Fooling people with a hoax is a lot easier than taking their money with a scam, which explains the current public attitude.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Milton Hathaway..”Global warming used to be a hoax, but it has since devolved into a scam. Save the earth has become give us your money.”

      Some politicians here in Canada, who are now in charge federally, have admitted to as much. They don’t think it matters whether or not the science is correct.

  25. It is not just a hoax but a blatant lie. There is no evidence of increased global warming causing a rise in the atmospheric temperature. Ice-core data has plainly shown that on a geological time scale the changes in CO2 concentration lag the changes in temperature by centuries. On a yearly time scale, cross-correlation between the annual rates of change of CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory with the satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature from your UAH data gave a lag of 5 months for CO2 relative to temperature. It is impossible for CO2 to cause a temperature effect before that effect even takes place in the CO2 concentration.

    Supporting this is the statistical comparison between the time series for the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration, after removal of the seasonal variation, with your UAH satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature, which already has the seasonal variation removed. Using a First Order Autoregressive model to account for the inherent autocorrelation between the two time series, gave a correlation coefficient of 0.0025, a t statistic of 0.053 with 451 degrees of freedom resulting in a probability of zero correlation of 96% for the period December 1978 to September 2016. That is, it is highly unlikely that there was any correlation between the two variables during that time period.

    Further support for this is the statistical comparison between the annual increment in CO2 concentration from the Mauna Loa Observatory and your UAH satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature. Again applying a First Order Autoregressive model, gave a correlation coefficient of 0.25, a t statistic of 5.38 with 455 degrees of freedom resulting in an infinitesimal probability of zero correlation for the period December 1978 to September 2016. It is not possible for the rate of change of CO2 concentration to cause a specific temperature level but reasonable that a given temperature level should define a rate of change of CO2, that is, temperature controls the rate of CO2 production.

    There is no life at the South Pole, it is too cold. The greatest profusion of life is in the Equatorial zone where the average temperature is higher that elsewhere. Most life forms require heat, water and carbon. They produce CO2 during or after their life cycle or both. It is proposed that the natural increase in temperature since the last ice age has caused an increase in the density of life forms resulting in an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This will come to an end with the next ice age. As for accounting for the biogenic CO2, biologists are continuing to discover new life forms on the land and in the ocean so we cannot know at what rate, under what conditions unknown life forms may produce CO2.

  26. Steve Case says:

    Hoax? I’d say Global Warming/Climate Change is more of a scam.

    Google search says:

    *********************

    hoax
    hōks/Submit
    noun
    1.
    a humorous or malicious deception.
    “they recognized the plan as a hoax”
    synonyms: practical joke, joke, jest, prank, trick; More
    verb
    1.
    deceive with a hoax.
    synonyms: practical joke, joke, jest, prank, trick; More

    *********************

    scam
    skam/Submit
    nouninformal
    1.
    a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
    “an insurance scam”
    synonyms: fraud, swindle, fraudulent scheme, racket, trick; More
    verb
    1.
    swindle.
    “a guy that scams the elderly out of their savings”
    synonyms: swindle, cheat, deceive, trick, dupe, hoodwink, double-cross, gull; More

    *********************

    Another one is the Green Blob ought to be the Green Mob

    And obsessing over average temperature when Minimums and Maximums are what’s important.

    Whoever controls the language controls the debate.

    Just saying |-:

  27. Ken Meyercord says:

    I encourage you to look into the Peak Oil theory to understand why the global warming alarmism is, if not a hoax, at least being hyped. Global oil production by conventional means peaked in 2005. As production declines and is compensated for by more expensive production methods (squeezing tar from sands, fracturing the earth, drilling in deep water), we have no choice but to resort to more costly alternative sources of energy (solar, wind, geothermal)or more environmentally destructive ones (coal, ethanol from corn). Can an ambitious, pragmatic politician explain this to the American people? Apparently not, so they present the ineluctable switch to renewable energy as something more palatable (saving the planet).

  28. ren says:

    The minimum temperature in Russia on 11.18.2016 (C). Click.
    http://www.meteoinfo.ru/hmc-input/mapsynop/Min.png

  29. ren says:

    Weakening polar vortex may yield longer, harsher winters in North America.
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/weakening-shifting-polar-vortex-study-longer-harsher-winters-north-america/61622468
    Meanwhile, the speed of the solar wind will continue to strongly jump.
    http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/animations/enlil/latest.jpg

  30. Crabby says:

    So I am no scientist and just an average reader of this blog who tries to avoid alarmist stuff.

    I understand that government organizations can be influenced to do what the government wants (creating a more alarmist global warming). But what about independent scientists that study it and find it to be true or as bad as it seems? What about other countries scientists that also find it to be true?

    I suppose my main hang up on it being a hoax is independent scientists also coming to the conclusion that global warming is “as bad as it sounds”.

  31. The global temperature situation is bizarre and is EXACTLY the opposite of what AGW theory predicted.

    It is the opposite because AGW theory predicted the AO would trend more positive, and the reality is it is trending more negative.

    The negative AO and current temperature situation in the N.H. tied to one another extensively.

    AGW THEORY A HOAX

    When a theory has two of it’s main cornerstones completely wrong those being the phase of the AO and the lower tropospheric hot spot it is time to ditch the theory.

    What AGW THEROY is based on is wrong therefore it does not matter if the global temperatures were running higher it has nothing to do with what that theory called for.

    As I have said a warm Arctic will lead to the initialization of global cooling overall.

    The geo magnetic field and it’s compounding effect on given solar activity is being completely ignored.

    Stupid, that is what the mainstream is, they are in a fog misleading the American public.

    If the solar and geo magnetic fields keep weakening I say further climatic impacts will be forthcoming .

    I would say they have already started as evidenced by the AO and sea surface temperatures on a global basis starting to trend down.

    I would love to know what global cloudiness is doing of late. My bet is it is on the increase as galactic cosmic rays increase due to the ever weakening magnetic situation.

  32. What is so frustrating we do not have readily available albedo changes and global cloud coverage changes.

    I wish we had that our fingertips but we really do not.

    I will watch global snow coverage and sea ice coverage which if they increase enough will have some degree of impact on the albedo, maybe one half on ne percent which is small but significant when it comes to albedo/temperature impact.

  33. cor– one half of one percent.

  34. Nate says:

    Those of you who believe GW is a hoax, conspiracy or a fraud:

    You probably also believe 911, Sandy Hook shootings, and the moon landings are hoaxes, Obama was born in Kenya, etc. The problem with all of these is

    1. Besides some guy on the internet saying it, what’s your hard evidence?

    2. There too many independent actors involved in these conspiracies. Climate change, for example, there are too many international, independent scientists and agencies involved. The data is almost all publicly available. It is simply not probable for them all to be involved in the conspiracy and keep quiet about it.

    Your conspiracies require too many randomly moving parts to line up. Occams razor says it is unlikely.

    • What the theory is based on is wrong.

      • Nate says:

        Then long established physics must be wrong.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Nate,

          Maybe you are confused. Heat makes things hotter. CO2 does not create heat. As a matter of fact, frozen CO2 is very cold. That’s what happens when CO2 is deprived of an external heat source – it gets very cold.

          No heating. That comes from the Sun, or combustion of hydrocarbons, or losses as energy is converted from one form to another – amongst any number of other things.

          Thermometers react to heat, not CO2. No magic involved.

          Established physics, which many GHE enthusiasts deny, apparently.

          Mathematicians such as Gavin Schmidt PhD, push GHE. Their cushy well paid sinecures depend upon it! They’ve never managed to heat anything at all using CO2 as a heat source, but have managed to confuse otherwise intelligent people into believing it’s a fact. Creating a new language with such terms as forcings, back radiation, and climate science, means that no real scientist has a prayer of disproving even the most outrageous claims.

          If the GHE acolytes refuse to publish a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, how can it be falsified?

          Just more Cargo Cult Scientism.

          Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            Once again, no one ever said CO2 is a heat source. Just as my 3 blankets on my bed are not a heat source. That is a straw-man argument.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nate,

            You can test your assertion, by putting a thermometer on your bed, and piling as many blankets as you like on it.

            Does the temperature of the thermometer rise? Of course not.

            Now put the whole lot out in the Sun. Does the temperature of the thermometer under the blankets rise as fast or as far as a thermometer on top of the blankets, exposed to the Sun? Of course not!

            No heating due to CO2 or blankets. You agree, by the look of it.

            No additional external energy, no rise in temperature. You might have noticed already, the GHE doesn’t seem to occur at night, indoors, in the shade, or where sunlight is lacking.

            Surprised? I’m not.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Sorry Mike,

            Dont buy it. My blankets keep me warm-by trapping my heat, as a thermometer under the blankets would clearly demonstrate.

            If you really want to push the analogy to the Earth and Co2 blankets, then the blanket should be transparent to light. Replace me as a heat source with external heat lamps shining on the bed. What happens? The temperature still rises because of the blankets. Just as it does on the earth.

          • Norman says:

            Nate

            Best of luck spending anytime trying to convince Mike Flynn of anything. He will not look at links and he does not use logic well.

            Here is a link to describe his behavior.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRSey5k5t9I

            For Mike “The mindless words you are repeating:
            We are the light of a beautiful world
            Logical thoughts are self defeating,
            We are the light of a beautiful world”

          • David Appell says:

            Ignore Mike Flynn. He is not evidence driven, and, in fact, he won’t even confront the evidence.

            He ignores all the science. It’s why his head fits so smoothly into the sand.

        • Thomas says:

          When the data and information that is used is “cherry-picked” so that the specific desired hypothesis is supported by the precious little bit of actual sound science that is made use of then one should at least question “why all the cherry-picking?”

        • No Nate the GHG effect is real but the cause of it is due to the climate not the other way around.

          The physics has far as more GHG causing warmth is correct but again that effect how strong it is, is due to the climate/environmental factors.

          This is why CO2 follows the temperature never leads it.

          The two cornerstones of this theory that have been proven wrong are the lower tropospheric hot spot which has never formed and the evolution of the AO oscillation which has been tending more toward a negative phase over the last several years as opposed to a more positive phase as called for by AGW theory.

          This in turn has led to a -AO Arctic warming as opposed to a +AO which suggest strong Arctic cooling. The opposite is happening.

          I have a list available of over 30 wrong predictions this theory has made . I will send it over next post.

        • http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

          Nate the greenhouse score card. AGW theory fails on all predictions.

          • Nate says:

            Salvatore,

            “score card”

            Not sure who this guy is. Looks like he falls into the “some guy on the internet saying it” category.

            I would suggest you take a look at the dozens of climate change reports from the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering.

            https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/

            When respected, experienced scientists, both climate scientists and other physical scientists, look at the WHOLE body of published evidence, the vast majority conclude that the evidence for AGW is compelling. Sorry but that is the normal way of forming a scientific consensus.

            But like any established theory in science, e.g. evolution, quantum theory, there are unanswered questions and incomplete understanding. That doesnt mean it is wrong.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nate,

            Self appointed “climatologists” are a mixed bag of second rate wannabes. Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.

            Gavin Schmidt of NASA, is not a scientist at all. He’s a pedestrian mathematician. Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate. The Nobel committee had to issue a statement saying he wasn’t, to let the world know he was slightly deluded.

            These men are your guiding lights?

            Some scientists believe in a GHE. More believed in the luminiferous ether, or phlogiston. Mass belief doesn’t make facts.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Which failures, Salvatore? Man up and be specific.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Nate, more like group think than conspiracy. Not unlike so many other false paradigms that have gone before it. My favorite being the incredible edible (if you eat more than two a week you will die) egg…

    • Norman says:

      Nate

      GW may be correct as Roy’s temperature graph does show some warming from 1979 to present (despite the yearly fluctuations). I think all the temperature graphs show some warming in the same time frame.

      AGW may not be correct.

      I have asked from both poster barry and David Appell to explain the CERES graphs and how is AGW possible if the graphs are valid, it is possible the warming we saw was because of a global effort to clean up polluted air (the polluted air reducing solar energy flux to the ground). The cleaner air allowed some warming to take place relative to the polluted air.

      Roy’s graphs show very little warming since 2000. CERES data agrees.

      https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

      On this CERES page click on “Visualize Data”. Scroll down to the graph of Total Net radiation all-sky and you will see it has not changed in 15 years. If there is not more radiant energy reaching the surface than AGW cannot be taking place. The warming cannot be do to downwelling IR if there is no temporal change in the Net radiative energy hitting the Earth’s surface.

      • Nate says:

        Not easy to see small changes of < 1w/m2 in these data.

        Surface data does show warming since 2000.

      • David Appell says:

        I told you Norman, I don’t take my science from amatures in blog comments.

        If you think you have a serious scientific point, submit your work to a real publication and have it reviewed by experts.

        But that’s the last thing you would ever do.

    • tonyM says:

      Nate:
      Why would anyone need to believe in conspiracy when the largest gravy train, Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen provides its own sharp focus and direction for the mind?

      Nonetheless there is plenty of evidence of conspiracy such as with Climategate, Hansen’s presentation to a Senate Committee, a cabal of climatologists invoking RICO legislation against “deniers” in lieu of presenting actual science, various Democrat State AGs targeting of Exxon and I imagine plenty of other illustrations with which I am not familiar ( I live in Oz).

      Jumping to moon landings etc would indeed equip you for championship status in high jump and pole vaulting at Olympic level. Give up those meds and try to avoid your hero Dr Lew and his offsider Dr Cook, the master chef at cooking the books.

      Would you care to name these “independent” scientists who support this conjecture. The last I saw was that out of a large group gathering of Nobel Laureates only 50% were prepared to sign a fairly benign statement of support for this conjecture. The leader admitted he had not studied this area and was providing support for his ‘bro’ scientists.

      The plethora of failed predictions is sufficient to falsify the conjecture; moon landings are not needed for this.

      • Nate says:

        Roy Spencer for one.

        Pick up any good climate journal. I don’t know, Geophysical Research Letters, look up the hundreds of authors. They are from many institutions all over the world.

        I do not find it plausible that they are all corrupt or gullible. You have no evidence that they are. You only have belief.

        • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo

          NATE HE DID THE SCORE CARD.

          And yes all the mainstream scientist that embrace AGW theory do not know what they are talking about.

          It has been proven wrong because the basis for that theory has not materialized.

          Namely an evolving hot spot and +AO

          • Nate says:

            So, mainstream scientists are wrong, you are right.

            Guess we shouldnt believe them on nuclear safety, possible asteroid impacts, infectious diseases, crumbling infrastructure either. Who needs experts?

          • fonzarelli says:

            No, nate, the mainstream scientists are wrong BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS…

        • The evidence is what that theory was based on has not come to be therefore it is wrong.

        • Nate says:

          Please dont bring up congressional hearings. They are highly political and highly bogus. Just look at Ted Cruz’s recent hearing where only skeptics allowed to testify. Or the House committee on anti-science, puleeez..

          • NATE , WE WILL KNOW BEFORE THIS DECADE IS OUT WHO IS CORRECT.

            Everything this theory has predicted from a +AO evolving over time to a lower tropospheric hot spot has failed to come about. .

            The distribution of warm and cold temperatures across the globe is wrong as well as the magnitude of the rise as called for by this theory. In addition the decline in global temperatures has now set in and will be accelerating gong forward putting an end to this theory.

            In addition this period of time in the climate is in no way unique.

            My theory (in a nutshell) is 1000x better then AGW theory . My theory is based on the following: Which is weak solar/geomagnetic fields when in sync IF the degree of duration and magnitude of change is long/strong enough will push the terrestrial items that govern the climate into a cooling mode.

            Terrestrial items
            sea surface temperatures
            major volcanic activity
            global cloud coverage
            global snow coverage
            global sea ice coverage
            atmospheric circulation pattern changes
            oceanic current changes

          • NATE one more time.

            The basis for this theory has not materialized!

          • Nate says:

            Salvatore,

            I assume you published your theory and had it peer reviewed?

          • fonzarelli says:

            Nate, it’s b*** s*** of the likes that you are pushing that gave us president trump. (keep up the good work)…

          • Nate says:

            I gave the country Trump? Trump the global warming is hoax guy? LOL. Thats a unique view.

          • fonzarelli says:

            READ MY LIPS, NATE, it’s the b.s. that you (and everybody else who is like you) spew that gave us trump. (we’re that sick of your crap)…

          • Nate says:

            Fonzarelli,

            The election of Trump shows that we do seem to live in a post-factual world, where everyone can have their own facts, so I’m sure you have yours. And my mainstream-science-based facts seem like BS to you. And those like me who believe in them must be demonized by those like you.

          • fonzarelli says:

            i’m not talking about science. i’m talking about your bias, your spin, your attitude, your grandstanding, etc. In short, all the crap that YOU are…

        • Nate it seems like you want everyone to agree which is ridiculous especially when it comes to the climate.

          • Nate I could care less about peer review, although I have much good company who agree with me. I care only about one thing and that is being correct and for the correct reasons which I expect to be.

            A theory like mine is not going to be entertained by mainstream because it runs counter and destroys their scam.

            Not only has the basis for this theory not materialized but if you would look at the historical climatic record this period in the climate is in no way unique.

            Anyways Nate if the global temperatures go down I am going to be correct peer review or not.

          • Nate says:

            Salvatore,

            Why work out a theory if it cannot pass peer review and get published? Then it will have no impact on others trying to do science or society. No one will find it believable. It is only for yourself. Then it is nothing more than a hobby.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Nate,
          You pose a thoughtful question . . . a question that I have pondered and explored for many years. As a published scientist, I am amazed that so many researchers / scientists take what seems to me a very unscientific position on climate issues. As a result of my inquiries, my conclusion is that there is not one unifying theme that explains the numerous articles that say global warming is manmade via CO2 and that it is dangerous. Rather, one must consider a wide range of explanations.

          First, the consensus is far from overwhelming. Many left-wing scientists such as Freeman Dyson say that the CAGW theory is very wrong. Moreover, several mainstream scientists such as Judith Curry are very disturbed by the degree to which climate science has deviated standard science practices. In addition, when an unbiased question of dangerous global warming via CO2 emissions is surveyed, the % of scientists agreeing is much closer to 50%. A majority of scientists do believe climate science has been politicized — researchers are playing to politicians rather than to science.

          Second, much of the news comes from researchers who are motivated more by a political agenda than by science.

          Third, related to the second point, much published research is confirmation bias. The researchers were determined ahead of time on what they were going to find, and they sifted through data, rejected contrary data, and manipulated data to achieve the results desired.

          Fourth, the third point points to the phenomenon of “Group Think.” Group Think is not a hoax, but Group Think disciplines and marginalizes those who might disagree with the agenda of The Group Think.

          Fifth, there is a large contingent of researchers who are gullible or ignorant or non-thinkers. I constantly run into researchers who do not know that temperatures reported are adjusted — much less do they know that the adjustment process produces results that are inconsistent with observed weather phenomena.

          Sixth, many non-published researchers do not realize the political nature that often creeps into publishing decisions. Connections do matter. Sometimes those connections get editors to accept articles without much question. Sometimes those connections mean that the article gets sent to friendly reviewers. Sometimes those connections mean that rebuttal articles are sent to hostile reviewers. The bottom line is that climate science journals are littered with articles that turn out to be embarrassing . . . and contrary articles do not appear.

          Seventh, as President Eisenhower feared in his farewell address, researchers do not want to upset the funding “gravy train.” We will go with what the politically-motivated government is funding.

          Eighth, there has been an incredible willingness to bypass data and go with modeled results. Maybe this is part of the Group Think mentality, but it deserves its own special mention.

          I could go on in this list, but hopefully you get the message that the issue is not solely — nor mostly — an issue of hoax or gullibility. But the issue is worthy of acknowledgement.

          • fonzarelli says:

            An Inquirer, yer the greatest… (well said)

          • Nate says:

            ‘there is not one unifying theme that explains the numerous articles that say global warming is manmade via CO2 and that it is dangerous’

            You seem to be neglecting the simplest possible unifying theme: that the evidence presented in these numerous articles is legitimate. That AGW is supported by the evidence.

            Instead you seem to be searching for more complicated and implausible reasons for all these publications.

            You believe you know the motivations of a whole group of highly educated scientists or that are either gullible, ignorant or highly biased, or otherwise deluded. Yet you have no real evidence for this, it is simply your belief.

          • Nate says:

            Inquirer,

            You want to pick on an individual, fine. Hansen, Mann, Ok, at least we can know something about their beliefs, motivations.

            But a whole group, all climate scientists, not fine. Not believable.

          • An Inquirer says:

            Nate,
            You show zero understanding of my post. If you cannot understand the post, would I even attempt to explain the issues in science to you?

          • Nate says:

            ‘zero understanding’

            Well that blanket assessment of me, of whom you know very little, does not give me confidence in your assessment of other scientists, their motivations and their understanding.

            Dyson: once a brilliant physicist, now 92. As he himself admits, he is not an expert on climate science. Even Einstein had wrong ideas about quantum theory, black holes, and unified field theories as he got older.

            Your statement that ‘ there is a large contingent of researchers who are gullible or ignorant or non-thinkers’. Sorry I know lots of PhD academic researchers-and most do not fit this description. Not believable.

            Funding: These are people who spent most of their 20s as poor graduate students. If $ was a prime motivator for them they would have gone into finance, law or business. Yes funding matters. It influences which fields of research people choose.

            Because there is a lot of funding for cancer research, would you say that cancer research is mostly wrong or fraudulent?

            On the other side of the issue you have large corporations. For them profit is there stated goal. For fossil fuel industries it is important for their profits to promote the notion that climate science is uncertain. This is where to look to find $$ as a prime motivator.

            That a majority think climate science is politicized is because there is a surprisingly clear political divide on this, a science issue. So what?

            I think you are describing effects that can occur on an individual basis: biases, bad reviewers, influence of connections, influence of funding, and you are assuming that these issues overwhelm and dominate the forces that produce good science: peer reviewers with integrity, competition, truth seeking, idealism in young researchers. IMO the checks and balances that built into science means that generally the truth emerges.

          • Nate says:

            BTW,

            Dyson thinks AGW theory is mostly correct. Look it up

          • An Inquirer says:

            Nate,
            I would suggest calming down and paying more attention to what others are saying . . . if others show a willingness to participate in a constructive conversation. You are right I do not know you, and what I said that in your replies to my post you were showing zero understanding of my post. I can talk about your posts without knowing you. Maybe you understood some things, but you did not show understanding.

            To pick up your last comment, Dyson Freeman does indeed to believe in AGW. So do I. So does Dr. Spencer. So does every skeptic with whom I have had extended conversations. (There are some non-believers on Spencer’s blog, but I do not engage them in conversations.) I have had a few congenial conversations with Dyson Freeman, and I believe that most news reports have got his position correct. The theory of AGW is sound, but that does not mean that it is dangerous or catastrophic — or even overwhelming of other variabilities.

            You seem to build strawmen quite regularly — I am not saying that is all you do in your life, but in your posts, you do. For example, to accept AGW is not the same thing as CAGW via CO2. Also, no one has said that all researchers are gullible or ignorant, but some definitely are.

            Perhaps you could do this as an experiment. In the community of PH.Ds that you meet, ask them to describe to you the adjustment process that NOAA uses — or that GISS uses — and how that adjustment is verified or not verified by known weather phenomenon. I have done such questioning, and that is why I make the statement that I made.

          • Nate says:

            OK inquirer,

            Lets start over with the conversation: I happen to think several of your statements are implausible: Perhaps you have some anecdotal experience and are trying to extrapolate these to the entire enterprise.

            Let start with this ” I am amazed that so many researchers / scientists take what seems to me a very unscientific position on climate issues.”

            Who are you talking about here? Climate scientists? Commenters on blogs? What is unscientific about their position?

            Also “much published research is confirmation bias. The researchers were determined ahead of time on what they were going to find, and they sifted through data, rejected contrary data, and manipulated data to achieve the results desired”

            How do you know this? This appears to be just a blanket assertion that is overgeneralized and is likely not supportable.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Group think’

            Hmmm. Not sure without some psychological testing how you can know that this is an important negative factor on research. Seems like opinion to me, one that is often promulgated by denialists.

            I do believe that scientists agree on many things. The scientific method. Using math and stats to analyze data. Measurements have error. Science builds on previous findings (this leads to progress). Replication is important. Long established physics and chemistry can be trusted and used. If these are ‘group think’ then group think is an essential ingredient in science.

            That is why when you say that ‘ researchers who do not know that temperatures reported are adjusted’, I find that implausible. All PhD scientists know that reported data has been analyzed, that it is not raw data, that there is some method of averaging and weighting data. That there needs to be some method of dealing with changing measurement tools and locations over time. They may not know all the details unless they are specialists in this area.

            You say there are ” a large contingent of researchers who are gullible or ignorant or non-thinkers”. People who are smart enough, hard working enough, and determined enough, to have obtained a PhD are, with rare exceptions, unlikely to be ‘non-thinkers’, ‘gullible’, or ‘ignorant’. This sounds like pretty much of an ad-hominem attack on people who you disagree with.

            “there has been an incredible willingness to bypass data and go with modeled results. Maybe this is part of the Group Think mentality, but it deserves its own special mention.”

            This has not been my experience in reading the literature. Most papers I see have to do with measurements, or reanalysis of measurements, and yes some modeling as well, as there should be. You will have to point out examples of what you mean.

            Eisenhower was talking primarily about the growth of the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’. Some science was/is driven by defense needs and wants. DARPA gave and gives large contracts to scientists to produce some desired product, device or technology. I don’t really think this is applicable to most fundamental climate research, where the findings of the research are not specified ahead of time. Of course there is also funding that is aimed at developing mitigation strategies, etc.

      • steve ridge says:

        TonyM: Of the 65 initial attendees, about half of the Nobel laureates delayed signing the Mainau Declaration. Ultimately, this other half were joined by six additional laureates who didn’t attend, which brought the total to 71.

        Only one laureate, Ivar Giaevar, abstained. He claimed he spent an afternoon examining the matter on Google. He said…

        “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

        Yes, yes, yes, science isn’t conducted by signatures on declarations and appeals to authority are against the scientific method, and of course, Galileo!

        It still begs the question: why did 98% sign with only one dissenter? There are two possible answers. One is reality-based and the other is unhinged.

        • tonyM says:

          Cant seem to get my replies through so let’s see what happens here.
          steve ridge:

          From your final paragraph if you truly can see only two possibilities as being collectively exhaustive then my conclusion is that you have a closed mind. There are many more possibilities with various shades.

          This is further emphasized by your oblique subordinate reference to consensus science and by highlighting that Dr. Giaever spent only a day in 2008 studying climate issues. What took him so long to notice the vacuous science; McIntyre would have set him straight in an hour with the IPCC hockey stick front page standard bearer. You elide the fact that he has been far more active before the Mainu Declaration.

          But let’s examine what was signed. The leader stated that this was not his field but he knew how much hard work and effort the scientists put into their work so he was supporting them. That is a bit like saying he supported the hard work of the bike rider without noting that it was an exercise bike going nowhere.

          To be blunt if there was any science to this CAGW it would be all that is necessary and not actors, declarations, journalists and the like. A falsifiable hypothesis and empirical evidence to support it suffices!! After over 150 years with this conjecture it should be crystal clear. It is not there! If you believe otherwise then kindly present it.

          Back to Mainu; apart from Mother Mary statements and conditional assumptions and beliefs what actual science are they endorsing? None!

          Hiding behind the IPCC they say:
          Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earths temperature over the coming century by more than 2C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made …

          Staggering given not one validated model!! Where is there any science! They are oblivious to the fact that the models all fail in the one direction. Hence the probability that they have validity is zilch!.

          Note well the use of the term “prediction” and not projection. Sounds like they did not spend even an afternoon studying this field. They do admit they are not experts but why would a scientist not ask the obvious question of results versus prediction?

          I could go on but it is more waffle in the guise of some important science statement.

          Many pussies purr louder than that in a direct fashion! If only I could train them to think in scientific terms!

      • David Appell says:

        tonym: What “failed predictions?”

        Be specific.

        PS: Climate models can’t make predictions, in principle. Projections are the best they can do. When are people like you ever going to acknowledge that?

        • tonyM says:

          David Appell:

          Please read what is written with a little care.

          Then you may ask the seventy plus Nobel Laureates why they said “predictions” in the Mainau Declaration.

          Have fun unraveling their motherhood statements.

          But, I still find it risible that after repeated failures of models the terminology changed from “predictions” as in FAR to projections. If at best they are projections on the wild side and unvalidated then why is so much faith put in those projections for thermageddon; absolute GIGO.

          I feel Pr-elect Trump may fix the models; clearly the scientists can’t!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Nate…”Besides some guy on the internet saying it, whats your hard evidence?”

      The IPCC. They stated clearly in 2013 that no warming had been detected between 1998 and 2012. They called it a hiatus. UAH data has shown no average warming from 1998 till present, excepting the early 2016 El Nino spike. If it is neutralized by a following La Nina, returning to the 1998 – 2015 average, we’ll have seen 20 years with no average warming.

      That’s as hard as anyone needs.

      • Nate says:

        The problem is that the ‘hard’ evidence you are relying on is highly selective. The several surface data sets show larger and more consistent warming over the 37 years than the UAH data. It is not kosher in science to ignore data and time periods (2014-2016) just because they dont conform well to your prior beliefs.

        The UAH data has several issues that make it less reliable.

        1.It is measured in the troposphere not down here at the surface.

        2.The troposphere contains a tiny fraction of the heat content of the climate system.

        3.It shows much larger variations than the surface data.

        4. Temperatures are inferred from microwave measurements. Modeling of the atmosphere is required to do this. There is disagreement on these models.

        5.The adjustments/corrections made to the UAH data have been the most consequential. Trends have changed from negative to positive to more positive to less positive from adjustments alone. Just the most recent correction (6.0) changed the 35 year Arctic trend from .44 to .23 deg/decade, and Australia from 0.16 to .25 deg/decade.

        This track record does not give one great confidence in the reported trends.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Nate…”1.It is measured in the troposphere not down here at the surface”.

          Surface thermometers don’t measure the surface temperature they measure at an altitude of anywhere from 4 feet to 30 feet or more, depending on where they are located. They are also prone to errors due to inversions. James Hansen even acknowledged those issues.

          The satellite telemetry measures the frequency of microwave emissions from oxygen molecules which are relative to temperature. They have several channels, one which covers the surface.

          “3.It shows much larger variations than the surface data.”

          Of course it does, the satellite data is far more accurate than 2 a day thermometer readings that are averaged. Sats also cover 95% of the surface as opposed to 30% by surface thermometers. Thermometers vary all over the place too but only the max and min are recorded.

          “4. Temperatures are inferred from microwave measurements.”

          Same with a thermometer. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. A thermometer infers the kinetic energy by indirect means.

          “5.The adjustments/corrections made to the UAH data have been the most consequential”.

          It’s the overall effect you want. The sats are showing a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 with little or no warming from 1979 – 2015. I’m not worried about a fraction of a degree C due to adjustments, although the error is more likely a few hundredths of a degree C.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            We happen to live a few feet off the surface not high in the troposphere.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            If you were truly trying to be objective, you would have issues with the way UAH is measured and the results obtained, as compared to the near surface measurements.

            3.It shows much larger variations than the surface data.
            Of course it does, the satellite data is far more accurate than 2 a day thermometer readings that are averaged. Sats also cover 95% of the surface as opposed to 30% by surface thermometers. Thermometers vary all over the place too but only the max and min are recorded’

            This makes absolutely no sense. More variation because it is more accurate? The satellite cannot measure the same location many times a day. It is moving over the surface. Measuring twice a day or more often has little to do with variations over months or years that are much larger in the troposphere. The larger variation is due to the fact that it is measuring a small reservoir of heat (the atmosphere) compared to the land/ocean reservoir.

            ‘4. Same with a thermometer. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. A thermometer infers the kinetic energy by indirect means.’

            Not at all the same. There is no modeling of the atmosphere required for near surface thermometers. There is no admixture of stratosphere that needs to be removed from near surface thermometry.

            “5.The adjustments/corrections made to the UAH data have been the most consequential.
            Its the overall effect you want. The sats are showing a flat trend from 1998 2015 with little or no warming from 1979 2015. Im not worried about a fraction of a degree C due to adjustments, although the error is more likely a few hundredths of a degree C.”

            Well you should be worried about 35 year trends that are doubled or cut in half, or go from negative to positive merely by reanalysis of the data.

            With all the hollering about the ‘adjustments’ made to GISS and NOAA data, they have not had anywhere near the consequences of the adjustments made to UAH. In fact all the surface data sets differ only slightly in the trends they produce.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “The IPCC. They stated clearly in 2013 that no warming had been detected between 1998 and 2012.”

        Gordon, why do you refuse to admit that new data has come in since the publication of the 5AR, which eliminated the hiatus?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          David Appell…”why do you refuse to admit that new data has come in since the publication of the 5AR, which eliminated the hiatus?”

          What new data? Are you talking about NOAA applying a climate model to existing data and revising it? That’s called scientific misconduct and it’s why NOAA is currently under investigation by a US Senate committee.

          NOAA has admitted to slashing 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 stations then applying data from 1500 stations to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to SYNTHESIZE temperatures for the 5000 they slashed.

          Slashing predominantly stations that report cooling enables them in their cause. In California, their slashing omitted the cooler Sierra Nevadas while focusing on warmer temperatures along the coast. Same in the Andes, where cooler mountain temperatures were homogenized to appear cooler. The entire Canadian Arctic is represented by one station. The entire Canadian Arctic has likely been synthesized to show warmer temperatures.

          When they announced 2014 as the warmest year ever they did not reveal up front that the claim was based on a 48% confidence level. That raises two questions: why do you need a confidence level with real data and why would a leading data acquisition outfit like NOAA want to use a 48% confidence level?

          Only one answer, political science. A 90% confidence level moved 2014 to 4th place where UAH had it listed.

          While you’re at it, will you reveal your personal motivation for supporting this scientific misconduct?

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            We can bet that you got all of these ‘facts’ about the misdeeds of a govt agency from ‘some guy on the internet saying it’.

            Just as you gave us ‘facts’ about HIV not causing AIDS, and ‘facts’ about the lack of evidence for evolution.

            Lets see a real and reliable source for this information.

    • Streetcred says:

      “Those of you who believe GW is a hoax, conspiracy or a fraud:
      You probably also believe 911, Sandy Hook shootings, and the moon landings are hoaxes, Obama was born in Kenya, etc. ”

      Aren’t we all just so sick and tired of this level of crap?

  35. ren says:

    The polar vortex location and the distribution of SA/GCR effects.

    It is known that the main elements of the large-scale circulation at middle and high latitudes are the polar
    vortex, planetary frontal zones and extratropical cyclones and anticyclones, all these elements are closely
    interconnected. The stratospheric polar vortex is a large-scale cyclonic circulation forming in a cold air mass
    and extending from the middle troposphere to the stratosphere over the polar region. A planetary frontal zone
    is a system of individual frontal zones (regions of high temperature contrasts that arise in the troposphere due
    to the difference of thermal characteristics of air masses forming over different kinds of surface). Cyclonic
    activity at middle latitudes is closely related to frontal zones which supply energy for the development of
    extratropical baric systems (cyclones and anticyclones).
    The polar vortex formation is due to air inflow to the Arctic region and its cooling over ice surface
    under the conditions of negative radiation balance. Air cooling and descent contribute to the growth of
    surface pressure. Simultaneously with the surface pressure increase a lowering of isobaric levels takes place resulting in the formation of low pressure area at the level 500 hPa and above. Thus, cyclonic circulation (the
    western zonal flow) arises around the pole. Circular air motion in the vortex isolates cold air inside it from
    warmer air at middle latitudes; it causes an appreciable increase of temperature gradients at the vortex edges.
    The typical location of the vortex as the low temperature area, with temperature gradients enhancing at its
    edges, is shown in Fig.1a, the data were calculated using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data [Kalnay et al, 1996].
    The vortex is known to play an important part in a variety of atmospheric processes. In particular, air
    cooling to low temperatures (80C) in the vortex area contributes to the formation of polar stratospheric
    clouds (PSC), with chemical processes on PSC particles catalyzing ozone destruction. The vortex state
    influences the evolution of large-scale dynamic processes in the atmosphere, e.g., the North Atlantic
    Oscillation polarity [Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001]. The rotation of cold and warm epochs in the Arctic
    seems to be related also to the vortex state [Gudkovich et al., 2009].
    Let us compare the typical location of the vortex and the distribution of SA/GCR effects at high
    latitudes in the periods of enhancing and weakening meridional circulation of the type C.
    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  36. ren says:

    Conclusions
    The results of this study allow to make the following
    conclusions:
    1)The links between cloud cover anomalies and GCR
    fluxes observed on the decadal time scale are not
    direct. At middle latitudes they are realized through
    GCR effects on the development of extratropical
    baric systems (cyclones and troughs) which form
    cloud fields.
    2)A high positive correlation between low cloud
    anomalies and GCRs in the period 1983-2000 results
    from a high positive correlation between cyclonic
    activity and GCRs which takes place under the
    conditions of a strong stratospheric polar vortex.
    3)The violation of a positive correlation LCA-GCR in
    the early 2000s seems to be due to the transition of
    the polar vortex to its weak state which resulted in
    the reversal of GCR effects on the troposphere
    dynamics.
    4)The polar vortex evolution is of significant
    importance for solar-atmospheric links. Its
    modulating effect should be taken into account
    when interpreting correlations between lower
    atmosphere characteristics and solar activity
    phenomena.
    http://newserver.stil.bas.bg/SUNGEO/00SGArhiv/SG_v10_No1_2015-pp-51-58.pdf

  37. Christopher Game says:

    I have seen it written that a hoax is a kind of satirical practical joke intended to expose some folly or arrogance. The story that human emission global warming is a danger is not a satirical practical joke intended to expose a folly or arrogance. It is not a joke of any kind. It is a vicious politico-bureaucratic strategem to gain real power for its advocates, and a seductive delusion for their useful followers, and an economic evil for everyone. ‘Scam’ may be a better word for it.

  38. Crakar24 says:

    I just got a letter saying my rate will drop from 26 to 8 cents so there goes your theory

  39. David V says:

    As a layman I often get lost in the physics of climate science, but as a businessman I can smell a rat a mile away.

    I visit your blog everyday, Dr. Spencer, and it’s worth it to read posts of this kind. I hope President elect Trump’s administration provides you and Dr. Christy with plenty of funding to bring the truth to light and end this political agenda.

    • bea says:

      “…as a businessman I can smell a rat a mile away.”

      As a salesman, I can recognize high pressure selling a mile away. It is unprofessional and unethical.

      The word “hoax” is thought to have come from “hocus-pocus.”
      As a matter of usage, it seems to have extended from “a conscious trick” to “an on-going nonsense.”

      • AGW theory is BS! I am quite confident.

        That said the global temperature distribution they called for is off as well as the rise in global temperatures not to mention all the other items I mentioned.

        I smell blood with this theory coming to an end as the global temperature decline I strongly feel will start to increase going forward.

  40. AGW theory will be proven wrong prior to 2020. Although it is wrong because everything it has called for has not materialized.

  41. Aaron S says:

    Green House Gases effect on climate are a scientific theory- and strongly supported.

    Climate models are hypotheses and to be tested. Until they predict within some threshold (1SD from the mean model) they should not be used for policy. However, data is now being manipulated- so this is very difficult situation for a data driven skeptic.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming research often crosses the line into pseudo science- where a conclusion is stated, then data to support it are collected and presented.

    • This theory ‘s cornerstones are all wrong wrong wrong.

    • Thomas says:

      It seems to me that the most blatant manipulation of the available facts is that the effects of water vapor, atmospheric H2O, which is by many times over the most prominent producer of the planet’s greenhouse effect is being largely left out or ignored by the AGW “legions of scammery.” I would not be willing to “bet the farm” on this, but the best information that I have been able to find searching the internet indicates that the atmosphere concentration of H2O is about 3%, or 30,000 parts per million…..And all of the flack and flap is over having an additional .01% CO2 being added to the atmosphere???? What the hey?

      Off track but (I think) interesting: Have you thought about the fact that as what is by far the largest user of energy of all kinds that exists on this planet thus the largest producer of atmospheric CO2 is none other than good ol’ Uncle Simple: The United States Federal Government. Heck, it may even be Constitutional for B. O., as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch to issue edicts to command all the various Executive Branch departments and agencies to clean up their act, reduce their size and cost and reduce their usage of energy of all kinds. Whadya think?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Aaron S…”Green House Gases effect on climate are a scientific theory- and strongly supported”.

      Not in physics. It has been proved in a lab experiment using much higher densities of CO2 that CO2 will absorb infrared radiation. No one has proved, using physics, that radiation of infrared from the surface is warming the atmosphere.

      Lindzen has hypothesized that convection carries atoms of warm air, whose kinetic energy is heat, high into the atmosphere where it is radiated to space. He has stated that the greenhouse theory is over-simplified.

      There is no support for the greenhouse theory in physics. The notion that glass in a real greenhouse traps IR is plain wrong. It traps heated atoms of air whose kinetic energy is heat. There is no equivalent in the atmosphere.

    • David Appell says:

      Aaron S says:
      “However, data is now being manipulated….”

      In what manner, specifically.

      Give examples.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        David Appell…””…data is now being manipulated.
        In what manner, specifically”.

        NOAA….slashed 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 and synthesized the missing 5000 stations using a climate model.

        NASA GISS…quietly changed 1998 with 1934 as the warmest temperature year in the US. Had to change it back when McIntyre of climateaudit caught them.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          BEST study…according to Dr. Judith Curry, a co-author, the final results were fudged by lead-author Mueller and not the results she found during the study.

  42. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Christy et al say global warming since 1959 is due to ENSO.
    What say ye?

    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf

    • I’m not sure how to interpret their claims.. sounds like they are making the case that the “proof” of human caused warming isn’t there. I agree with that. And it’s not inconsistent with what I’ve said.

      • bea says:

        The chief prediction for the next few years that one can winkle out is:

        Absent a strong El Nino, the (recent) high in the global anomalies will not be regained.

        So… we will see.

        • David Appell says:

          But El Ninos happen.

          This last El Nino peaked at about 0.4 C above 1997-98’s. That El Nino peaked at about 0.4 C above 1982-83’s.

          Why? Where is the extra heat coming from?

          • michael hart says:

            It is not shown to be “extra” heat. As you say, El Nino’s happen. Or don’t happen. No “extra” heat required.

    • David Appell says:

      Were these conclusions ever published in a journal? Ever peer reviewed?

  43. Kristian says:

    Roy, you say:

    The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming.

    Already in what you write here you concede that this is something that is decidedly NOT settled: “has probably contributed to recent warming”.

    We don’t know this. At all.

    All we can say with relative confidence is: More CO2 in the atmosphere should reduce somewhat the radiative heat loss from Earth’s global surface, All Else Being Equal, leading to a reduction also in its total heat loss (radiative+evaporative+conductive), again All Else Being Equal, causing a rise in global surface temperature as a result, as long as the heat INPUT from the Sun (the ASR_sfc) stays unchanged.

    These are THEORETICAL propositions. And so they all have to be tested empirically against real-world observations. Is any of this ACTUALLY observed to occur?

    The short answer: Nope.

    IOW, the premise that if you only put more CO2 into the atmosphere, then you MUST get some degree of global warming, is faaar from an established empirical truth. In fact, I’m tempted to say: On the contrary!

    • like I said, *relatively* settled…*probably* contributed to warming… I didn’t say or imply “MUST get some degree of global warming”, which is how you characterize my comments. So please don’t put words in my mouth.

      • Dr. Spencer – A question if what the theory calls for is wrong such as the lower tropospheric hot spot and a +AO evolving over time isn’t that enough to say this theory just is not panning out?

      • Kristian says:

        I didn’t put words in your mouth. If you notice, I quoted you verbatim. I didn’t ascribe the notion that there MUST be some global warming from more CO2 in the atmosphere to you specifically.

        BTW, what do you mean by “relatively settled”, then. Something that’s “relatively” settled, is it settled or not? Care to clarify?

        • barry says:

          How ‘settled’ is gravity theory, when there are still some fundamental unknowns, but we can use it to orbit and land unmanned spacecraft on distant planets and asteroids?

          Pretty much all theories of complex things are’relatively’ settled, if one takes skepticism to its absolute degree. (Indeed, deep skepticism is philosophical – do things even exist etc etc?)

          How ‘settled’ is the theory of evolution? In my view, there’s so little doubt on the basic idea that one weights it to certainty by default. One proceeds without having to equivocate every time the topic is introduced, as if this is a useful or honest practice.

          By comparison – although your conception of the physics puts you at greater odds than Dr Spencer and most other physicists – AGW is ‘relatively’ settled. That’s a description of the basic premise that is more than fair for those who, unlike yourself, perceive that CO2 is a GHG whose presence in the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer, and would warm it further with greater concentrations (all else being equal).

          No, this is not an invitation to yet another circular on the physics.

          • fonzarelli says:

            One mans “settled science” is another mans “group think”…

          • Kristian says:

            IOW, if you were Spencer, barry (you’re not), your reply would be that “relatively settled” in science is – for all intents and purposes – equal to just “settled”.

            Well, then we’re right back to my original comment:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-229874

            which Spencer claimed somehow misrepresented his position, because he hadn’t said (and thus apparently didn’t mean to say) “settled”, but “relatively settled”.

            Which is the very reason I asked him to clarify.

            And then you come along …

            So you’re claiming, then, barry, that we KNOW (as well as we know gravity and evolution by natural selection) that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST lead to an absolute increase in global temps …?

            Is that what you’re saying?

          • barry says:

            I reckon we *know* as securely as we know evolution theory that, all else being equal, more CO2 = warmer surface.

            When I say *we*, I do not of course include you.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, November 21, 2016 at 9:35 AM:

            I reckon we *know* as securely as we know evolution theory that, all else being equal, more CO2 = warmer surface.

            Yes, and what did I write in my original comment to Spencer above, barry?

            “All we can say with relative confidence is: More CO2 in the atmosphere should reduce somewhat the radiative heat loss from Earths global surface, All Else Being Equal, leading to a reduction also in its total heat loss (radiative+evaporative+conductive), again All Else Being Equal, causing a rise in global surface temperature as a result, as long as the heat INPUT from the Sun (the ASR_sfc) stays unchanged.

            These are THEORETICAL propositions. And so they all have to be tested empirically against real-world observations. Is any of this ACTUALLY observed to occur?

            The short answer: Nope.

            IOW, the premise that if you only put more CO2 into the atmosphere, then you MUST get some degree of global warming, is faaar from an established empirical truth. In fact, I’m tempted to say: On the contrary!”

            When I say *we*, I do not of course include you.

            Problem is, it specifically DOES include me, barry. You need to actually read what I’m writing before you start typing yourself …

          • Kristian says:

            Out in the real Earth system, All Else is NEVER Equal, barry. That’s why we need to TEST our theoretical assumptions against reality.

            And reality tells us that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to assume that simply putting more CO2 (or any other IR-active substance) into the atmosphere will automatically lead to a warmer surface, even though we think so theoretically. Because, theoretically, we have to fully rely on the “All Else Being Equal” clause to be operational in order to get a positive result. That might work in a controlled experiment in a laboratory. It will NOT work out in the real, dynamic Earth system.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”How settled is the theory of evolution? In my view, theres so little doubt on the basic idea that one weights it to certainty by default”.

            You amaze me with that statement. How can you claim there’s little doubt on the basic idea when the basic idea is clouded in uncertainty?

            For one, the root of the theory, abiogenesis, flies in the face of the very theory that underlies it…covalent bonding theory. The likelihood that 5 basic elements, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and phosphorus fluked together via covalent bonding to form life has odds against it that are billions and billions to one.

            When the theory was first offered, no one knew anything about DNA. Now that we know DNA has codes that are read by RNA to form different amino acids, there is nothing in covalent bonding theory to account for those codes. Codes come from intelligence, not from chaos and sheer chance.

            Secondly, evolution theory depends heavily on transitions between species. There is not one fossil to demonstrate that transition nor is their an explanation for why species should transition.

            I’m afraid evolution theory is as much a hoax as anthropogenic global warming theory.

          • David Appell says:

            fonzarelli:

            What is unsettled about Newtonian physics?

            Thermodynamics?

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            ‘Secondly, evolution theory depends heavily on transitions between species. There is not one fossil to demonstrate that transition nor is their an explanation for why species should transition.’

            Darwin’s first book was an extensive compilation of evidence that species transitioned, and explained the why and how very clearly. Obviously since then we have gathered much much more evidence.

            There have definitely been found fossils intermediate between species. Archeoptiryx, many more.

            That evolution has occurred has plenty of evidence. Only if your beliefs are not evidence-based can make a claim otherwise.

            The development of life from simple molecules is a separate issue that we can only speculate about.

            ‘DNA has codes that are read by RNA to form different amino acids, there is nothing in covalent bonding theory to account for those codes’

            What does this mean? DNA have covalent bonds and exist and have 4 differnt bases that carry information (as you admit) so this makes no sense.

    • David Appell says:

      Wrong, Kristian. The increase in forcing has been measured:

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

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      • Kristian says:

        You don’t get it, do you, Appell?

        We need GLOBAL data, not data from a couple of LOCAL sites.
        We need ALL-SKY data, not CLEAR-SKY data, which unrealistically excludes clouds from the overall picture.
        We need TOTAL DWLWIR, not just radiation emitted within narrow segments of the full spectrum.

        AND we need direct correlations with temperature (of air and surface) at the specific sites over time to see whether we can establish any kind of causality in either direction.

        These ‘studies’ tell us absolutely nothing of interest.

  44. oldbrew says:

    ‘The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming.’

    On the other hand recent warming should have added CO2 to the atmosphere, due to ocean outgassing.

  45. John Sanders says:

    I have not read all the replies so I’m not sure if this comment has been covered. I believe that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible for CO2, at its present level, to contribute to any global warming. The reason can be found in examining its infrared spectrum. This shows how CO2 reacts to infrared radiation. Such an examination will show that CO2 is about 95% transparent to the complete infrared spectrum which covers wavelengths of 2-25 microns.
    Thus, I believe that at the 400 ppm level there is no possible way for CO2 to make any contribution to global warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      John Sanders…”Thus, I believe that at the 400 ppm level there is no possible way for CO2 to make any contribution to global warming”.

      The IPCC admitted in one of their previous reviews that anthropogenic CO2, based on an overall CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv, is a small fraction of natural CO2. When the figures are worked out it comes to about 4%.

      Therefore most CO2 in the atmosphere is recycled from natural sources like the oceans and vegetation. That CO2 over the millenia has not contributed significantly to global warming so why should the pithy amount of ACO2 we have contributed?

  46. Norman says:

    John Sanders

    I think you might need to understand black-body emission curves.

    IR is not uniformly emitted at each wavelenght equally so the 95% transparency in not particularly relevent in the discussion.

    https://directory.eoportal.org/image/image_gallery?img_id=218018&t=1339757099635

    This graph should bring up a black-body curve for some different temperatures that are close to what the surface of the Earth emits at.

    You can see the bulk of IR is at the same wavelenght Carbon Dioxide absorbs at, that is why it has an effect but the maximum would be about 20% of any GHG even with this peak. If the atmosphere were pure Carbon Dioxide you would have a much weaker GHE than with water vapor and clouds added.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      And yet, trying to deny, divert, and confuse, the presence of anything at all in the atmosphere doesn’t prevent cooling, let alone create a rise in temperature. Never. Ever.

      The GHE exists only in the minds of its proponents.

      No science. Not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Just another bizarre cult belief, which will be defended to the last drop of someone else’s blood!

      Pardon my amusement – the graphic depiction of Cargo Cult Scientism in the form of climatology restores my faith in the saying “there’s one born every minute”! Or more often.

      Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Norman,

          I’m guessing you’ve provided a link to something pointless and irrelevant, in yet another attempt to deny, divert and confuse.

          I’ll let you tell me whether I’m right.

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Your laziness is truly a feat to behold. Not sure I know of a poster as lazy as you are. It requires far too much effort for your finger to click on a link.

            You post these words: “deny, divert and confuse.”

            Any desire to actually do a slight amount work and put out an effort to further explain what you are attempting to say with your choices.

            Deny. Deny what? What am I denying that you are claiming?

            Divert. Divert what? What are you being diverted from? Non thinking and illogical processing?

            Confuse. That is obvious. Any thought will seem to confuse you and you are not capable of understanding simple concepts.

            Here is why you are confused. You falsely and ignorantly believe that Carbon Dioxide is warming the surface (not causing it to be warmer relative to a state with not GHG, which is considerably different). I have linked you to sources clearly showing you this is not the case but simple graphs that have multiple lines are what must confuse you. You are like the androids on Westworld. Show you a link and your reply “That doesn’t look like anything to me.”

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            YOU: “No science. Not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis.”

            The fact that the entire surface (both night and day) of the Earth is much warmer than it could get with solar input energy alone determines GHE is a flasifiable hypothesis.

            The fact you have a surface next door (Moon) that is considerably colder than the Earth’s entire surface.

            Those two measured and observed facts demonstrate the GHE is quite real.

            Also it is based upon empirical measurements of Downwelling IR.

            I think I understand that you do not comprehend the First Law of Thermodynamics so let me refresh your memory. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Downwelling IR is hitting a surface that absorbs a large amount of IR. What do you think happens to the energy?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You appear to be confused, but correct me if I’m wrong.

            I thought the greenhous effect resulted in heating, as in “Hottest year EVAH!” Merely being warmer than otherwise is no cause for concern, if temperatures are not rising.

            You wrote –

            “You falsely and ignorantly believe that Carbon Dioxide is warming the surface (not causing it to be warmer relative to a state with not GHG, which is considerably different). ”

            I’m not sure what alternate reality you were occupying when you decided I believe that there is a GHE of any form. Sorry, no GHE. None.

            As to the Moon, you convenently forget to mention, that in line with conventional physics, the surface of the Moon heats faster and further than the Earth. This is why climatologists love averages so much. They are meaningless, and nobody has ever managed to accurately measure the average surface temperature of the Moon or the Earth.

            You apparently don’t accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, as Fourier pointed out over 200 years ago. As he said –

            “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.” Clever chap, Fourier. Even he understood the mechanism by which the Earth has gradually cooled.

            Keep on with the GHE – although you can’t bring yourself to say it results in heating. I agree, that would be ridiculous! Gavin Schmidt and his odd collection of associates are obviously mistaken.

            So, if the GHE doesn’t result in heating, what’s all the fuss about? Does CO2 make the Antarctic any colder, or the Libyan desert any hotter? Nope, not at all.

            So you can deny that GHE proponents claim that the Earth is mysteriously heating up, due to the presence of CO2 in the air, divert the conversation to talking about blankets, averages, back radiation or whatever, and confuse the issue by claiming that CO2 heats the surface, and doesn’t heat the surface, at the same time.

            Or you can just accept reality. No GHE. No CO2 heating. None.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            You really do not read any post just keep putting the same things down over and over like a programmed android.

            Here you go again (first it is false from what I have posted to you on other threads). YOU: “You apparently dont accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, as Fourier pointed out over 200 years ago. As he said ”

            You change your wording whenever you want and hope no one will catch it. I posted back that the Earth is cooling (very slightly, maintained by radioactive decay) which is not the same as the surface. The surface has cooled and warmed numerous times in cycles. It has been cooler in the past and warmer. Surface is different than Earth total. The surface has not continued to cool since 4 billion years. It cools at times and warms up at times reaching peaks and troughs.

            Now you are just being plain dumb! “As to the Moon, you convenently forget to mention, that in line with conventional physics, the surface of the Moon heats faster and further than the Earth. This is why climatologists love averages so much. They are meaningless, and nobody has ever managed to accurately measure the average surface temperature of the Moon or the Earth.”

            You do not understand the concept of “averages”. You do not measure and average you calculate it from many actual measurements. It is a calculated value not directly measured but is valuable to many scientists in many fields.

            Also you only consider one side of a planet and that is just lazy logic. At the same time the Moon’s sunlit surface is hotter than the Earth’s sunlit surface its dark side is much colder than the Earth’s night side and you can calculate average temperatures of both surfaces.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Foolish Norman,

            An arid desert which experiences high temperatures of 45C, and minimum temperatures of -5C has an average temperature of 20C or so. Completely useless, as the soldiers equipped for 20 C by the British MOD discovered when they died.

            So you are right – the Moon gets both hotter and colder than the Earth. It has no appreciable atmosphere. Its average temperature is meaningless. Claiming that the Earth’s surface becomes hotter than the Moon is just silly.

            Provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, and people may pay attention. Just claiming that CO2 heats the Earth’s surface in bright sunlight is not an actual scientific hypothesis.

            No GHE. No CO2 heating.

            Try using terms known to real scientists (rather than the jargon beloved of so-called climate scientists), and see how you go. Not so well, I’ll warrant!

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            MIke Flynn

            Please answer just one simple question.

            You state this (on many occasions): “Just claiming that CO2 heats the Earths surface in bright sunlight is not an actual scientific hypothesis.”

            Who is making this claim? If you state Gavin Schmidt made the claim can you link to a direct quote? I really do not know who has made this claim other than yourself. You make this claim and state how ridiculous it is.

            Go back to a situation you can grasp. Coffee in a cup with a HEATER in it keeping it warm (gentle heating). The coffee will reach an equilibrium temperature where the incoming energy of the heater is matched by the outgoing energy.

            Now wrap the same cup in insulation and see what happens. It will become warmer. The insulation did not INCREASE the coffee temperature but the coffee is warmer. The insulation did not generate its own energy and move it into the coffee. If you remove the heater the insulated coffee will cool (just at a slower rate than the uninsulated coffee). The heater is what warms the coffee. It is the source of incoming energy. The insulation slows the heat loss so with energy input the coffee becomes warmer.

            The Sun is the energy input for both Earth and Moon surface. Carbon Dioxide does not generate its own energy to send to the surface. The energy the carbon dioxide gains is from the surface warming and some of this energy goes back to the surface. The returning energy (which is less than the outgoing energy) lowers the rate of cooling and will allow a higher temperature to be maintained like the coffee in the insulated cup.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            “Atmospheric CO2: principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature.” Gavin Schmidt is a lead author. Read the paper if you wish.

            You’ll notice that the official NASA graphics supposedly showing how the GHE works, show the Sun shining on all the continents at once. Geographical place names are shown, just in case you don’t appreciate the fact that heating only takes place during the day, and on all continents simultaneously!

            Of course, as Fourier pointed out, during the night, or in winter for that matter, or at the poles, temperatures can get quite low. No GHE to speak of.

            You are obsessed with insulators wrapped around internally heated objects, capable of replacing heat lost by the object at its skin.

            I’ll point out that the Earth possesses insufficient internal heat to maintain its skin temperature. That is why it has cooled since it was molten. So wrap your blankets round a fresh corpse, which has internal heat (like the Earth), but not enough to maintain its skin temperature (again, like the Earth). The corpse still cools – just like the Earth. Putting your blanket wrapped fresh corpse in the Sun will prevent it heating as fast as a bare corpse – just like the Earth.

            Or, if you prefer to cherry pick furiously, go to Berber country. Standing naked in the fierce desert sun will kill you reasonably quickly. The Berbers are smarter than you, so they wrap themselves in dark woollen blankets to keep cool enough to prevent death from overheating.

            Sorry, Norman. No GHE. The atmosphere acts as an insulator – keeping the surface a little cooler during the day, and a little warmer at night, in general. No mystery, just physics.

            On a final note, you mention that CO2 warms due to energy emitted by the surface. Quite true. And what happens to the surface temperature as a result of emitting this energy? It cools of course! The CO2 returns less energy to the surface than it absorbed, as some is radiated to space.. So the surface cools. Even after the sun passes its local zenith or noon, temperatures start to drop.

            All easily explained. No magical GHE required. If I have erred in fact, I’m sure any number of GHE fanatics will hasten to correct me. Unfortunately, they tend to divert into irrelevancies relating to blankets, pot lids, overcoats and such. Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis, is there?

            Cheers.

          • Kristian says:

            Mike Flynn says, November 20, 2016 at 5:38 PM:

            Ill point out that the Earth possesses insufficient internal heat to maintain its skin temperature.

            Exactly! That’s why it needs a relatively warm atmosphere to maintain it. The atmospheric mass simply THERMALLY INSULATES the solar-heated surface, by reducing the rate of heat LOSS from the surface at a given surface TEMPERATURE.

            That is why it has cooled since it was molten.

            It hasn’t cooled since it was molten, Flynn. It cooled until the crust initially congealed. After that, the surface T_avg has gone up and down according to changes in mean solar input and atmospheric mass.

            The atmosphere acts as an insulator keeping the surface a little cooler during the day, and a little warmer at night, in general. No mystery, just physics.

            Yup. And the AVERAGE surface temperature, then, is much higher WITH a massive atmosphere in place than WITHOUT. No mystery, just physics.

            (…) the surface cools. Even after the sun passes its local zenith or noon, temperatures start to drop.

            Sure. And no one says otherwise. But it cools more SLOWLY with a massive atmosphere in place than without. Just like it warms more slowly during the day.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn wrote:
            “On a final note, you mention that CO2 warms due to energy emitted by the surface. Quite true. And what happens to the surface temperature as a result of emitting this energy? It cools of course!”

            Snarf.

            The surface would radiate whether CO2 was in the atmosphere or not.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re right, Norman — Flynn doesn’t read replies. He doesn’t read science. He doesn’t read the data.

            His opinion is religious in nature.

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn: Why doesn’t the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere prevent cooling?

        Does CO2 aborb IR?

  47. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer testimony 8 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U

    • Oops!
      Roy – would you like to comment on your testimony 8 years ago when you claimed the theory of man-made global warming and the (then) warming would soon disappear.

      • Sounds as if you “did a Salvatore” !

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Chu…”…would you like to comment on your testimony 8 years ago when you claimed the theory of man-made global warming and the (then) warming would soon disappear”.

        It has essentially. The theory is being propped up by diehard governments who rely on it for revenue.

      • David Appell says:

        Of course he would’t care to. Roy lives in a bubble, and never ventures outside it. He has to confuse editors in order to get his papers published.

  48. barry says:

    Politics? Tsk, oh well then.

    It’s risk management. That’s the basis. The particular nature of the risk is this – we cannot walk away from the outcome. Can’t build another atmosphere, can’t go somewhere else.

    That point should be clearly understood – as I imagine it is by some who seem to be very certain that the risk is small.

    But no one truly knows, and those who say differently are most definitely selling something.

  49. gregory crutch says:

    Interesting web site here. We have a loud minority that actually disagree with “Dr. Spencer’s” science and spout nonsense. Then there are a few people who sort of understand “Dr. Spencer’s” point of view and make some valid arguments. Lastly, we have a view stubborn folks who actually understand climate science and are shouted down.

    An important fact to remember is that Roy Spencer is not a climate scientist. He is very clear about this. His website banner states proudly “Former NASA scientist”. He freely admits that he is not a scientist, and that something nobody should forget.

    Roy Spencer is not a scientist! He is a contrarian and libertarian and he doesn’t hide it. No matter what the actual scientists say, he will disagree with it. He thinks that he is smarter than everyone else, and any problem that requires the US government to act on, he will be against it.

    Dr. Spencer ignores the consensus of scientists that agree about the current problem of climate change. I challenge him to provide a list of scientists who reject the consensus and are also in favor of a more socialist point of view of government spending resources to solve global problems. There are none. The “deniers” or “dissenters” are all pseudo-scientists that object more to government action on anything than actual experts on climate science.

    Roy’s posts make his position clear, so let’s start the list of “scientists” that disagree with the IPCC and are not staunch anti-government ideologues.

    Fill in the list, can we get to even 3?

    1. Nobody
    2. Some guy with no knowledge of climate science
    3. Some old guy who use to study engineering and now writes comments on web sites
    4. Some weatherman somewhere.
    5. Nobody

    Please, fill in the list

    • ren says:

      He was the trend in solar activity up, is now down. Is it consistent with the data?
      http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00842/58exprychpuh.png

    • ren says:

      After El Nino decreases the heat content of the ocean? Do you agree with this data?
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif

    • ren says:

      Are they consistent with the science data on the distribution of ozone at an altitude of approximately 45 km in the stratosphere?
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_01_nh_f00.png
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png

    • ren says:

      Is the position of the polar vortex is unfavorable for North America?
      http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00842/xgnjwu8erxxu.png

    • Mike Flynn says:

      gregory crutch,

      Let’s perhaps start with some science.

      Climate is defined as the average of weather over an arbitrary period of time. 12 year old children should be able to calculate an average. Not much science here, I think.

      There appears to be some agreement between the motley crew of self appointed “climate scientists” that a GHE is raising the temperature of the Earth by some magical means involving GHGs.

      Unfortunately, no falsifiable hypothesis explaining a mechanism as to how this might occur is anywhere to be found in written form. Maybe you could post a copy of the GHE falsifiable hypothesis here? Assertions and claims of consensus do not a valid scientific hypothesis make, by the way!

      As Richard Feynman said about this sort of nonsense – this is science?

      Cheers.

    • Norman says:

      gregory crutch

      You post: “Roy Spencer is not a scientist! He is a contrarian and libertarian and he doesnt hide it.”

      Have you read his about page?
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

      From the page: “Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.”

      He was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies and has a Ph.D. in meteorlogy.

      You seem to be of the opinion science is the “new” religion where the experts are not to be challenged and anyone who attempts is a fool.

      There are reality considerations to consider on this science. Government money is limited and can be tight for research. One has to make a loud noise to get money to feed themselves and family. If contrarian science views on climate change are not funded by a progressive liberal government then who will be able to do such research? If contrarian research is not published by leading journals who will read about it or learn of it.

      Alarmism in Climate Science is a great benefit to progressive politicians who want to increase government power and influence. Government can then intrude more in the private sector and increase taxing to work to solve a problem (that may not even exist).

    • AGW theory is flawed in it’s basic premise, end of story!

    • Milton Hathaway says:

      Gregory Crutch – Do you think entirely in logical fallacies?

      Just curious.

    • Lewis says:

      Gregory,

      Dr. Spencer is a scientist, previously with NASA. If you have read much of him, you would realize he continues his studies at UAH.

      Please, pay attention.

      Lewis

    • gregneedsacrutch says:

      Crutch, were you born with your head up your a** or did it take a life time of achievement to get it up there?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gregory crutch…”He freely admits that he is not a scientist, and that something nobody should forget”.

      Last time I checked, a degree in meteorology makes you a scientist. I disagree with Roy on thermodynamics but I would not want to take him on in meteorology.

    • David Appell says:

      Stop it. Roy is a scientist. Maybe you disagree with him — that happens in science all the time. But you shouldn’t be putting him down for what you see as your own benefit.

  50. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable

    Since you do not click on links: “Adj. 1. falsifiable – capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation”

    GHE is falsifiable. You can measure two surfaces (Earth and Moon) at various locations and come up with average surface temperatures. This makes the theory testable. You can measure the amount of incoming solar radiation that strikes both surfaces (again making the theory falsifiable). From that information you can determine that the Moon’s surface averages much colder than the Earth’s. On the dark side of each planet you put a sensor (that measures IR) and point it upward. On the Moon you read no IR. On Earth you get a strong positive reading.

    You have observational evidence that IR is striking the Earth’s surface at night. You go in a laboratory and heat some Carbon Dioxide gas in controlled conditions and you find it is emitting IR at certain wavelengths. You have evidence that carbon dioxide emits IR when heated.

    Now you go back in the field and measure the air temperature and find it has a value. You have experimentally proven heated carbon dioxide emits IR. The laws of physics do not change from lab to field so the warmed Carbon Dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would be emitting IR.

    All falsified. Your long standing point (“not falsifiable”) is incorrect.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      You still haven’t stated the mechanism of the GHE, what it is supposed to do, or how it does it. This is what has to be included in a hypothesis, in order that it may be tested.

      You have presented nothing that is novel, apart from the unsubstantiated assertion that the Earths average surface temperature has actually been measured. Claims, claims, and more claims!

      Oxygen emits IR. So does all matter above absolute zero!

      So of course, an atmosphere above absolute zero emits radiation. Your observation that air has a temperature is not new. It doesn’t support an unspecified, nebulous, undefined GHE, either.

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        YOU: “Oxygen emits IR. So does all matter above absolute zero!”

        You have no concept of scale or what insignificant means. A period on a page has some mass but would you include its weight as important to the entire weight of a truck full of books? It emits several times less than carbon dioxide.

        You must be a really dense person. I clearly stated you cannot measure an average temperature, it is a calculated number just like you can’t measure area. You measure the sides of an object then calculate an area from those measurements. To get an average temperature of the Earth you would have to have some temperature measurements spread around at different points and then add all of them up and divide by the number of measurements and you have an average.

        I have definately stated a mechanism fo GHE and it has acutally been measured and tested. Downwelling IR. Measured value.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58323f399421b.png

        Click the link and you will see.

        Here is the source of the image so you can make your own graphs for many different spots in the US. Have fun, hope you can learn.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    • Kristian says:

      Norman says, November 20, 2016 at 7:56 AM:

      On the dark side of each planet you put a sensor (that measures IR) and point it upward. On the Moon you read no IR. On Earth you get a strong positive reading.

      You have observational evidence that IR is striking the Earths surface at night.

      No, Norman. You’ve got observational evidence that our radiatively active atmosphere has a temperature far above absolute zero while space doesn’t.

      There are two kinds of IR detectors, cooled and uncooled.

      The cooled ones are so-called “quantum detectors”. In order for them to produce a usable signal, they need a close-to-pure incoming radiant HEAT flux, because they don’t calculate anything, they only detect. That’s why it’s cooled to cryogenic temperatures. They simply won’t detect anything if they’re warm.

      The UNcooled ones, however, don’t need this. They’re so-called “thermal detectors” and only need to sense a change in temperature to produce an electronic signal. That is, just like the cooled detectors, they detect the “net LW”, the radiant heat, but it doesn’t need to be ‘pure’. The change from the net LW can be positive or negative (or zero), either way a signal will be produced and used as input to a calculation of hypothetical “partial fluxes” (up and down). The instrument also needs the temperature of the detector itself as input, otherwise no “partial flux” values can be found.

      You need to learn how this works, Norman. You’re constantly chastising Flynn for not reading and not thinking. But you’re no better yourself. You continue “like a programmed android”, just like he does …

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Norman…”GHE is falsifiable. You can measure two surfaces (Earth and Moon) at various locations and come up with average surface temperatures”.

      Your theory is based solely on radiation theory and does not account for oceans and an atmosphere. I think the oceans are responsible for the warming for which the GHE is given credit.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      There used to be some doubt about the average temperature of the moon. Some experts claimed 255 K while others claimed 154 K. After 18 months of discussion we arrived at a consensus. The average temperature of the moon is 197 K as measured by the Diviner Lunar Radiation Experiment.

      There are now at least six models that predict the average lunar temperature within one degree of the measured value. Here is one of them:

      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

      When you have a model that correctly predicts the temperature of the moon it is reasonable to use it to predict the temperature of an airless earth so here are my predictions:
      Airless earth with regolith surface = 209 K
      Airless earth with icy surface = 234 K

  51. AGW theory ends as viable before this decade ends, take it to the bank.

    This will be good because now we can devote our time to what really causes the climate to change and get away from this distraction. I even wasted much of my time on AGW theory.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Yeah, but salvatore, your wasted time has helped others. (so, i don’t think that you’ve really wasted your time)…

      • Salvatore,
        you have wasted your time big time. You are the most “wrong” person ever to post a prediction on this blog. Davil Appell has called you out umpteen times yet you blithely continue making pronouncements as if nothing has happened – never an admission of fault, just more and more dud predictions. You are not a scientist – you are a religious zealot who continually yells “AGW theory is wrong – I know it!”.
        What a joke.

        • Based on what?

          It is wrong because the basics of the theory are wrong.

          As far as my prediction if were able to comprehend which does not seem to be the case you would know that the solar criteria I called for which would produce cooling is just now starting to happen.

          Therefore if the global temperatures do not go down once my solar criteria is met then you can say I am wrong.

          • cor- if you were able to

          • You wouldn’t know “basics of the the theory” if they hit you full in the face.
            As for:
            “As far as my prediction if were able to comprehend which does not seem to be the case you would know that the solar criteria I called for which would produce cooling is just now starting to happen.”

            Apart from being incomprehensible gibberish, it makes as much sense as me predicting I will be a rich man as soon as I win the lottery.
            What a joke.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Chu…”Davil Appell has called you out umpteen times…”

          Appell is big on questions with no answers of his own. Hardly a source to prove Salvatore wrong.

          As for you, why are you hiding behind a different nym?

        • gallopingcamel says:

          David Appell is not to be trusted on matters of science.

          I don’t always agree with Salvatore but he has a much better grasp on reality than David.

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Salvatore,

      “we can devote our time to what really causes the climate to change”
      To understand what causes the climate to change seems to require we understand what causes weather to change for climate is merely the average of weather at a given location. It’s ridiculous to consider that the earth has a climate, an average temperature, etc.

      An year or so I tried to contact you via your man at Salem OR, no success. If you what a serious discussion, not a debate, about this find me at PSI.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, by now, too many lies from you.

      “I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
      – Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
      http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047

  52. Tim Wells says:

    Test to see if I can post.

  53. Tim Wells says:

    Roy Can you point me in the direction of getting reputable artic and ant artic sea ice volumes. Regards Tim

  54. Just a 1/2 of one percent increase in ALBEDO will wipe out the recent warming.

    I think this is attainable due to greater global cloud coverage/snow coverage tied to very low solar activity.

  55. Mike Flynn says:

    I’m not sure whether this relates to James “Death Trains” Hansen –

    “Scientists have disagreed about how extreme climate changes impacts could be in the long term.

    Some, like James Hansen at Columbia University, have painted an exceedingly grim picture that includes super storms lifting massive boulders up from ocean depths and raining them into big population centers.”

    If the GHE doesn’t manage to kill you but boiling, frying, roasting, toasting, or flooding, it looks like you’ll die from boulders dropping on your head.

    Marvellous stuff, that CO2. Plants love it.

    Cheers.

  56. Woody Loloam says:

    Dr. Spencer, can you point us to a study of another era in Earth’s history when CO2 levels have changed from 3 to 4 parts per 10,000 that didn’t correspond to a dramatic shift in Earth’s climactic conditions? Or any net change of 100 ppb?

    Regarding increased yields of corn and wheat; how did you factor out the influence of changing the flux of N2 from the atmosphere to ammonia and nitrates via the Haber-Bosch and other synthetic processes, improved pesticides, and genetically modified strains to increase yield? Is there evidence that CO2 is a limiting factor in corn growth in open systems?

    Regarding the zeal of EPA to regulated GHG’s can you provide your readers with the history of EPA efforts and resources to regulate GHG’s prior to being sued for NOT regulating GHG’s and losing before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA in 2006 (following EPA’s 2003 determination that it lacked authority under the CAA and declined to do so?

    Regarding your acknowledgement that anthropogenic influences may be affecting atmospheric CO levels and temperatures; those changes are small and therefore inconsequential; how do you assign significance? I suppose that if a gigantic earthquake dumped California and all its inhabitants into the Pacific Ocean, we could objectively say that the impact is “small”. After all, the Earth would only lose 1/2 of 1 percent of it’s inhabitants. If sea rise is a consequence of the “small” climate change, would 100 million climate refugees from coastal areas be insignificant?

    I get that your bottom-line position is that adaptation is preferable to attempted mitigation in light of the many benefits that energy brings to human well-being; but I don’t know that you are accurately projecting the external versus internal costs of those adaptations in your discussions. The acid rain program (part of that 1970 CAA you say was necessary) did not bring the economic doom predicted at the time; and improved fuel efficiency seems to at least correlate with improved competitiveness of American car manufacturers. How can you be sure that the costs of mitigation are a net negative? If AWG change is real but small, it seems that there are many people, businesses, and cities paying the real external costs of that change on a daily basis; even if they are “small”. For years there was stark objection to higher standards for light bulbs; yet I now have many more lighting choices than I ever had when the Edison incandescent reigned supreme; and my net costs for lighting are going down. I am still trying to figure out how I was harmed by that policy, but I do understand how energy providers feel threatened by standards related to increased fuel efficiency.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Woody Loloam..”Regarding the zeal of EPA to regulated GHGs can you provide your readers with the history of EPA efforts and resources to regulate GHGs…”

      Obama filled the EPA with uber-alarmists and his own website started a witch-hunt to root out those evil climate change deniers. Under his administration, NOAA resorted to scientific misconduct to rewrite the historical temperature record using statistical analysis.

      It got beyond regulating GHGs, it became a witch hunt to eliminate scientific skepticism.

      • David Appell says:

        See the Supreme Court decision Mass v EPA 2007. The Supreme Court ruled CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

        The EPA was the *defendant,* and lost.

  57. Woody Loloma says:

    There is only a correlation between smoking and increased incidence of cancer in humans. As best I know, not a single case of human lung cancer has been proven to be caused by tobacco smoke. Not one case. To say otherwise must be junk science! This has all been a plot to deny us our God-given right to blow smoke on fellow restaurant patrons and office mates, and force tobacco farmers to switch to kale. The madness must stop now.

  58. Simon says:

    “At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertianties as a tuning knob.”

    This statement is so unfortunate. The use of the word “dodgy” implies deliberate action to mislead. I now that is not what the rest of the sentence says, but it is still a word that should not be there(unless you do want people to think your colleagues in the field are up to no good). Perhaps the word difficult, complex, or uncertain would have been more accurate.

    • wert says:

      ‘dodgy’ is word of multiple meanings. For me here it meant unstable, not robust, or evasive.

      Did you feel that your personal integrity was being questioned?

      • Simon says:

        “Did you feel that your personal integrity was being questioned?”
        No I thought it was a sad deliberate attempt to question the integrity of the scientists who work in this area. And because it came from a scientist it is even sadder.

        • wert says:

          Given how Dr Spencer has been called and handled, dodgy is a pretty lame way of name-calling in that context.

          I’m not sure what is going on, but I insist dodgy science has been a part of that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Simon…”The use of the word dodgy implies deliberate action to mislead”.

      Have you not read the Climate emails? They are full of deliberate actions to mislead by alarmists scientists some of whom are poobahs at IPCC reviews.

  59. If OLR was decreasing, if the AO was trending more positive, if the lower tropospheric hot spot was present, if this period of time in the history of the climate was unique, if solar activity had been very low prior to year 2005 going back a century , then AGW theory might have some validity.

    Unfortunately for AGW theory none of the above has happened therefore any reasonable person would conclude this theory is on life support if not dead.

  60. wert says:

    Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.

    This is absolutely a good point. Everybody should agree on this.

    People do not see the effects of anthropogenic global warming in their daily lives.

    In fact, seeing the effects of global warming (anthropogenic or not) is so difficult, that precise measurements have been taken, and a careful statistical analyse has been run, and after those scientists have found out the temperatures are rising only 0.012 – 0.017 K/yr.

    It would be ridiculous to say this can been seen in daily lives, when it has taken decades of scientific work to put out the uncertainty and come up with that small number.

    At the moment, global warming or anthropogeninc global warming is a non-issue. When will the bad consequences overcome the good ones, is a very good question that appears not to be a very popular question to ask.

  61. Ross Brisbane says:

    Your just a crowing old rooster Roy. Your generation will long pass away as will this traitor to your nation Trump in the coming years. He will be remembered by the American people in 6 short months and not for the right reasons. Dark years ahead everyone. Dark years.

    • Grundolph says:

      HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA, Good one, Ross. hahahahahahhaha….phew, hehe! I only quit laughing because I think I cracked a rib.

      Anyways, care to add anything to the debate?

    • fonzarelli says:

      Rossie the Aussie, we do have assange to thank for giving the good ol’ u.s. of a. president trump. It took an australian to save us from ourselves…

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ross Brisbane…”Your generation will long pass away as will this traitor to your nation Trump in the coming years”.

      I’m a socialist who wanted to see Trump win, that’s how bad it has gotten up here. I am willing to hold my nose on social issues the next 4 to 8 years to see Trump kick the butts of the politically correct who have gotten this world into such a mess.

      I don’t share your pessimism. The dark years occurred in the mid-2000 era when banks and financial institutions were allowed to play ridiculous, unregulated board games with profiteering. Obama hired the culprits as advisors who brought the US down through their chicanery.

      Trump could do no worse if he tried.

  62. Ross Brisbane says:

    Hail Trump! The climate Denier and Jewish Holocaust supporting the President advisor Brannon https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk

    The ALt-right too right….WAKE up America! You are asleep.

    • Ross Brisbane says:

      More Americans want action on Climate change. What A stuff up.

      What falsehoods of denial will Roy the boy convey next?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ross Bribane…”The ALt-right too right.WAKE up America! You are asleep”.

      You’re out of touch. For one, America is a continent, not a country. For another we in America the continent (which includes Canada) are wide awake. We don’t fear Trump, we fear the politically correct who spread climate propaganda, like you.

  63. ren says:

    Currently disc the sun without visible spots. Weak solar wind.

  64. Weather weirdness in the Arctic – record high temperatures and record low sea ice

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/11/weather-weirdness-in-arctic-record-high.html#more

    • AND THE WARMTH IS THE OPOSITE CHU OF WHAT AGW PREDICTED FOR THE ARCTIC

      Remember they said a +AO.

      How quick we forget.

      AGW is a trash theory that will be trashed before this decade ends.

      • ren says:

        Let’s look at albedo.
        Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
        http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
        Product shows the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is derived from the AVHRR instrument. The available solar energy only varies with the solar zenith angle.
        http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/as19_prd.gif

        • ren says:

          Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earths atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.
          When the flow of incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, Earth is in radiative equilibrium, and global temperature is relatively stable. Anything that increases or decreases the amount of incoming or outgoing energy disturbs Earths radiative equilibrium; global temperatures must rise or fall in response.
          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page2.php

        • jerry l krause says:

          Hi Ren,

          A while ago I asked Fonzi why the ocean’s albedo could not be measured from a satellite platform. To which he has not responded. So now I ask you or any others who might have an idea.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Norman says:

            jerry l krause

            Would it have something to do with the straight on view of the satellite (like you can’t identify a face from space that is looking down). The light reflected off the ocean would be at angles far from the overhead, the light hitting directly on the ocean is absorbed, the light reflected is at much steeper angles?

            It is a guess so I hope you answer to see how close I was. Thanks.

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Norman,

            I consider you have the right idea. An ocean surface is smooth, not rough, so sunlight reflected specularly (Specular reflection is the mirror-like reflection of light (or of other kinds of wave) from a surface, in which light from a single incoming direction (a ray) is reflected into a single outgoing direction.) Hence, an satellite instrument at any given time can detect a reflected ray from a very tiny portion of the ocean surface. Before the earth’s average albedo was measured from satellites, the value was about 0.35 and after it the value was about 0.28. Think that could make a difference when modeling?

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • fonzarelli says:

            Hi, Jerry… i “lost” you a while back. i had two doctors appointments and let things go a while. (one of them was periodontal surgery, ouch!) Have you any more thoughts on thermohaline circulation? Talking with you makes me realize just how complex the climate system is. We do tend to over simplify. (but, i think that if we don’t come to some simple conclusions, then we can’t ever say anything definitive about climate science) i just spent some time over at wuwt and discovered something profound about shallow ice cores (and the data). i have a sneaking suspicion that i may be in for a lengthy discussion above with barry about this. If i do, i’ll try to get your attention about it. It involves to some extent thermohaline circulation. It’s bed time for this insomniac, so i must go. regards, fonzie

          • Norman says:

            jerry l krause

            I found an albedo calculator. If the data you provide is correct a shift of this much in global albedo would cause the Earth equilibrium temperature to rise 3 C.

            http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Norman,

            I need to ask: Which change of albedo caused the temperature change 3C, 0.35 to 0.28 or 0.28 to 0.35? I ask because of was thinking the latter, to which the proposed change did not make sense, but then I considered you could be considering the former? Really does’t make a difference to me because the problem I see is what I consider the mistake of not recognizing what I consider to be the problem of observing (measuring) the value of the albedo from a satellite.

            If you stand at a high place above a water surface and look toward the sunshine being reflected from the surface you know the surface does not look dark blue, it looks dark blue to the sides of the glare you see. And the dark blue would be black if not for the diffuse blue light being scattered by the molecules of the atmosphere.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Fonzi,

            Sorry to hear about your health issues, but glad you had reason to stop responding. As your ‘disappearance’ did bother me as I saw you were corresponding with others.

            You say I make weather and climate complicated and I would like to consider that I am trying to make it simple. For, in the case of the albedo, how can you understand anything if the fundamental data is wrong?

            An interesting fact is that near the beginning of this post you can see that Roy snipped what I had written. You can read what he censured at PSI. But what was interesting is I sent a copy, via email, of my article to David Appell and in last email he responded ” “It seems clear that maximum temperature of a day is due to sunshine”

            Why is this clear?

            Why doesn’t the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?

            What evidence do scientists cite as proof of the GHE?”

            To which I replied: “”Why is this clear?” In six or seven hours the topsoil temperature can be observed to increase from its minimum temperature of a 24hr period to its maximum temperature which can be observed to be more than 20C greater than the maximum air temperature measured 1.5m above the surface a few hours later.

            “Why doesn’t the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?” Atmospheric circulation.

            “What evidence do scientists cite as proof of the GHE?” In science nothing can be proven to be true but ideas can be proven to be wrong.”

            Does David walking away from my comments sound like the David we know? Other things he had previously written in his emails caused to question if he on blogsites is playing devil advocate to test what those who disagree with his position here actually know. I base this possibility on these three simple questions he asked. For asking the right questions is very important to learning.

            Maybe the last question does not seem important to you, but it does to me as I consider my answer (the same as that my answer to David’s question) to the physics professor (physics was my first minor) on my doctoral committee possibly saved me because the mathematics professor (mathematics was my second minor) had totally destroyed me by asking a very specific question about orthogonal series of which I had not clue what he was asking. And when he was done with me I could not have told him that 2+2=4. This was in my oral preliminary examination and my examination was the only one that I knew of that had an extended session. This to reexamine my mathematical knowledge.

            Fortunately, I learned that the oceanology students considered this mathematics professor to be desired because they knew he had a few very specific and complex mathematical questions, one or two which he asked. So you could prepare for them and appear to be a mathematical whiz kid.

            So until I learned about this, I had to consider that I was not going to achieve the desired result of four or five years of study and research.

            But you asked: “Have you any more thoughts on thermohaline circulation?” David asked: “Why doesn’t the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?” The same question can be asked of the Antarctic Continent and my answer would be the same. So I ask you: Does the atmospheric circulation cause the thermohaline circulation or does the thermohaline circulation cause the atmospheric circulation?

            Yes, we can have good, informative, discussions. That is why I was disappointed when you disappeared.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Fonz and Norman,

            I take whatever opportunity to get my ideas out there. Which ideas I have found seldom being considered and which I consider are not ideas at all but instead are actual observations or forced conclusion due to observation.

            When David A. asked: “Why doesn’t the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?” My immediate answer was: Atmospheric circulation. For I had long considered the fact that the two poles had a six month day and a six month night and the obvious consequence of this. How often have you read a review of the probable consequences of the topographical differences between the two polar regions. The northern, the Arctic Ocean, is basically a bowl into which cold, dense atmospheres from the north-facing continental surfaces drain. This bowl has two outlets at sea level: the Bering Straits and the North Sea. I have never lived near either. I have lived 50+ years in either eastern South Dakota or northeastern Minnesota where very cold (sub-zero F) air masses routinely descend over this general region during the winter toward lower latitudes and sometimes bring freezing air temperatures to Florida or maybe New Orleans.

            Seldom have I read that the centrifugal effect of the rotating earth and its atmosphere was a factor in moving this cold, dense, air mass down to 45N from where it is basically downhill to the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. I have long considered that a rotating cylinder was a better model for the rotating near sphere of the earth because of the centrifugal effect as a force acting upon the atmosphere increases as the radius of the flat end of the rotating cylinder increases. But near 45N the direction of the force somewhat rapidly transitions from a horizontal force to a vertical force. Hence, after the surface cold air mass descends to about 45N, gravity becomes the factor in maintaining its southward horizontal flow to lower latitudes.

            Now a fact is Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist, of continental drift infame, died trying to establish a meteorology station on the high plateau of Greenland. Two popular USA introductory meteorology textbooks do mention Wegener but not because he died trying to establish this meteorology station. One mentioned his contribution to the ice-crystal theory of rain formation known as the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process and the other about how the continental drift from the one supercontinent proposed by Wegener could have caused the ice ages of the past. So I consider I am on firm ground when I say it seems few meteorologists have considered the potential importance of establishing a meteorology station on Iceland that evidently that Wegener saw.

            And similarly, it seems that few meteorologists and climatologists have considered the potential importance of Antarctica somewhat centered on the South Pole. Whose surface at the South Pole would likely cool to near absolute zero during the near six months, when there was no direct sunshine upon it surface, if not for atmospheric circulation and the adiabatic warming that occurs when the atmosphere above the continent subsides to replace the cold, dense surface atmosphere draining off the high plateau to sea level due to the action of the centrifugal effect.

            Now, I do not consider the pictures to which I direct your attention to be based upon complex reasoning. You might consider them to be complex because you and seemingly many others probably have never constructed these pictures by using simple reasoning (observations?) that few, to no, physicists could doubt. Notice my qualifiers which clearly state I am not making absolute statements which could lead to debate. For a scientist can never be absolutely certain.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • David Appell says:

            Jerry wrote:
            “David asked: Why doesnt the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?”

            Context? Link?

            If not I expect an apology.

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi David,

            David Appell
            Nov 16 (12 days ago)

            to me
            > On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:37 PM, J. L.K. wrote:

            > “It seems clear that maximum temperature of a day is due to sunshine”

            Why is this clear?

            Why doesn’t the Arctic approach 0 K during its 6-mth winter?

            What evidence do scientists cite as proof of the GHE?

            Are there two David Appells?

            Have a good day, Jerry

      • Reptile says:

        “AND THE WARMTH IS THE OPOSITE CHU OF WHAT AGW PREDICTED FOR THE ARCTIC”

        No, its exactly how its predicted 30 yrs ago.

    • WizGeek says:

      Search for volcanic activity under the Arctic ice at the Gakkel Ridge:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gakkel_Ridge

  65. Troubling Signs in Antarctic and Arctic Sea Levels
    NASA says ice levels at both poles are at record levels.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-11-21/antarctic-and-arctic-sea-ice-levels-at-record-lows

  66. Roy would you like to comment on your testimony 8 years ago when you claimed the theory of man-made global warming and the (then) warming would soon disappear?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Chu…”Roy would you like to comment on your testimony 8 years ago when you claimed the theory of man-made global warming and the (then) warming would soon disappear?”

      It would be much better if you disappeared.

  67. sergio says:

    Dear Dr. Spencer

    I am following your papers on global warming with strong interest, since they are always bringing added value to the international debate on this subject

    however I have to confess that I feel you are underestimating a tremendously dangerous effect on the pollution caused by fossil fuels, which are the small dust particles released in the atmosfere with the process of producing and using coal, oil, etc. etc.

    according to the World Health Organization these dust particles are killing more than 6,000,000 people every year by inducing a number cardio-pulmonary diseases mainly on the inhabitants of large metropolitan areas (mainly in developing countries)

    that means that since the beginning of this century almost 100,000,000 people died because of this tremendous death toll

    probably global warming is not so big as IPCC panelists are trying to demonstrate, and the effect of CO2 is not completely negative because it increases plants growth rate, however nobody can negate that the side effect of using CO2 (air pollutants) is much more dangerous to human and animals life than CO2 itself

    I would be extremely grateful to you if you could eventually tell your opinion on my considerations

    Sergio

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Sergio…”according to the World Health Organization these dust particles are killing more than 6,000,000 people every year…”

      The WHO predicted an HIV/AIDS pandemic for the US that never materialized. Furthermore, they have blamed a sexually transmitted virus, HIV, that has never been isolated, purified or even seen, for the plight of Africans who are suffering from malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites (malaria and intestinal worms).

      The WHO are essentially propagandists whose abilities in science are slim to none.

    • David Appell says:

      Sergio: This dust — “aerosols” — have a net cooling effect, about -1/2 of CO2’s positive forcing.

      UAH or most groups who calculate the monthly numbers are not in a position to include this effect — they are simply calculating temperature, not what causes it.

  68. ren says:

    Dangerous weather in Minnesota. Rain, ice and snow.

  69. ren says:

    China continues orange alert for cold front
    Source: Xinhua 2016-11-21 23:10:46 More
    BEIJING, Nov. 21 (Xinhua) — China’s national observatory renewed its orange alert Monday for a cold front set to sweep central and eastern China from Monday evening.

    From Monday to Thursday, temperatures across most of central and eastern China are expected to drop by 6 to 10 degrees Celsius, according to the National Meteorological Center (NMC).

    In some parts of Henan, Anhui, Hubei and Hunan provinces, temperatures will drop by up to 16 degrees Celsius, said the NMC.

    The cold front will be accompanied by gales, rain and snow, according to the NMC.

    The NMC warned the public about possible transportation disruptions due to the weather.

    China has a four-tier warning system for severe weather, with red being the most serious, followed by orange, yellow and blue.

    • Alert! Alert! – it is going to get colder tonight after the sun sets!
      What a joke.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        chu…”Alert! Alert! it is going to get colder tonight after the sun sets!”

        science please…the Sun doesn’t set. The horizon rises in a relative manner, creating the impression the Sun is moving.

        It doesn’t surprise me that a climate alarmist would think the Sun revolves around the Earth.

        • chu en ginsberg says:

          What a weak rejoinder.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            chu…”What a weak rejoinder”.

            What’s weak about the truth? You don’t seriously think the Sun revolves about the Earth, do you? Why do we insist that the Sun moves relative to the Earth when it’s plainly an illusion, same as AGW.

            I know it’s easier to say sunrise and sunset rather than horizon rise and horizon set. We could call it horise and hoset. The people who thought the Earth was flat had to get over their illusions, what’s taking us so long.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon doesn’t think it gets colder after the sun sets.

          That is the level to which blind denial has sunk to.

  70. I will say it again AGW theory will be proven to be wrong before this decade ends not that it isn’t already.

  71. steve ridge says:

    Dr. Spencer wrote…

    “While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector.”

    Close to 90% of the world’s oil supply is controlled (owned) by governments. The companies known as “NOCs” for nationalized oil companies with such names as Statoil, Pemex, Petrobras, CNOOC, Gazprom, Ecopetrol, and Aramco.

    When it comes to oil, governments *already* control the private sector. Given the overwhelming acceptance of the mainstream science on AGW by the world’s governments, their willingness to give up their “golden goose” is in direct conflict with your claim.

    In the US, the advent of home solar panels, for example, would be an example of government “control over the private sector”? Somehow I see greater efficiency and individually-owned power sources as an avenue to liberate individuals from a reliance on powerful interests, whether they’re in the middle east, here in the US, public or private.

    Look closely and you’ll see that contrarians are almost exclusively found where the private sector controls and profits from the oil supply. Ground zero is the US, and elsewhere to a lesser extent, primarily in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

    Why is that?

    http://www.economist.com/node/7276986

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      steve ridge…”When it comes to oil, governments *already* control the private sector”.

      Don’t know where you hail from but here in Canada we used to have a government-controlled oil company, Petro-Canada, and it was gutted and sold to the private sector. There is no public sector oil company in Canada. The US is far worse.

      Even our hydro-power corporation in BC, BC Hydro, is slowly being privatized.

      Deregulation and privatization lead to the US financial collapse of the mid 2000s. Private concern have shown themselves incapable of being fair and impartial and acting in the interests of the general public. Time to bring back regulations to protect our economies.

      • Steve Ridge says:

        Read my last paragraph again. I mentioned Canada as being one of the exceptions. Again, about 90% of the world’s oil is socialist. Governments *already* control and “own” the oil.

        Dr. Spencer’s original statement:

        “While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector.”

        Why are governments so willing to surrender the vast amount of oil wealth they control by accepting the mainstream science on climate? It’s an article of faith in conservative circles that government is always attempting to acquire, retain, and abuse power.

        Even Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Bahrain signed the Paris Agreement.

        I have a good explanation for this puzzle. It’s not a hoax. Nor is it seen as one except in countries with the active PR campaign of climate denial and private sector control of oil.

        As I already said, that includes Canada.

    • David Appell says:

      Dr. Spencer wrote:
      While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector.

      Roy, the US has had a cap-and-trade program for 25 years.

      How exactly has this gained control over the private sector??

      • Steve Ridge says:

        Strange, isn’t it?

        The same government took control of Chrysler briefly and reprivatized it without a controversy shortly thereafter.

        You’d think once they had their evil tentacles on a major auto manufacturer that they’d fight tooth and nail before giving it up.

  72. !!!!!
    NEWS FLASH:
    “Donald Trump says he believes there is some connectivity between humans and climate change in major U-turn”

    Asked if thought human activity was linked to climate change; he responded: I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.

    He also said he would keep an open mind on whether he would pull the US out of a landmark international climate change deal.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-says-he-believes-there-is-some-connectivity-between-humans-and-climate-change-in-major-a7432671.html

  73. Ross Brisbane says:

    Short term half wit Roy Spencer. It is what it is the pipeline in the next 25 years – we have not finished the rise in temperatures and its effects. You and your mate should retire and stop the BS science. Go fishing as they say. You are getting worse in your denial as you get older. Emboldened by some wacko President that even drew protests from your own young people who are conservative within the colleges. How can you even hold your head up to this one. You hypocrite. All the GLOBAL evidence points one way – Global Warming is getting very nasty right now.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Maybe it’s the Warmists getting very nasty right now?

      What do you think?

      Cheers.

    • rossisanass says:

      Stick it where the sun don’t shine

    • The temperature rise stopped in 1998 and global cooling has already started and will be continuing going forward in due to weak solar/geo magnetic fields.

      This period in time in the climate is not even close to being unique.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ross Brisbane…”You and your mate should retire and stop the BS science”.

      If you had half a brain yourself you’d be aware the so-called BS science comes from data garnered from NOAA satellites. In the 35 years Roy and John Christy at UAH have been making data sets from this data it has shown little or no warming.

      BTW…both Roy and John have been awarded medals for excellence from NASA and the American Meteorological Society for their work.

      Why don’t you go comment at the NOAA site where they have slashed 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 stations. They apply the real data from 1500 stations to a climate model where it is statistically modified to re-synthesize the 5000 missing stations.

      After modification by a program written by humans it surprisingly shows record warming. Go figure. The statistically manipulated data shows record warming while NOAAs own satellites do not.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon wrote:
        “In the 35 years Roy and John Christy at UAH have been making data sets from this data it has shown little or no warming.”

        A bald-face lie.

        UAH LT v6beta5 shows a warming of +0.84 F over their 38-yr old record.

        Gordon, don’t take a butter knife to a gunfight.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Ross,
      You are a nasty, pathetic troll. You are way worse than David Appell who at least provides almost relevant links.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ross Brisbane…more BS from NASA GISS.

      GISS is now run by uber-alarmist Gavin Schmidt. He runs the uber-alarmist site realclimate with his buddy Michael Mann who was caught in the Climategate email scandal interfering with peer review and fudging proxy temperatures (hide the decline).

      I would not confuse NASA GISS with the NASA who launch rockets. Night and day difference.

      Missing heat hiding in the oceans…totally amateur pseudo-science.

  74. Mike Flynn says:

    Ross,

    “The hiatus period gives scientists an opportunity to understand uncertainties in how climate systems are measured, as well as to fill in the gap in what scientists know, said Yan.”

    Tell me again, how very nasty Global Warming is getting – your link claims there’s a hiatus.

    Cheers.

    • Ross Brisbane says:

      That was slow down. It has resumed. El Nino – now passed has lifted the regime of heat climb to a new level. Check your global trends my friend. Stop looking at this slow down as being permanent – its not. Global Warming accordingly has continued to be trending UPWARD. Not reversing. Every time we have a big La Nina it is a kind of plateau but stay locked step into new regime of heat step at the appearance of a new El Nino. Spencer knows this only too darn well.

      La Nina is heat to ocean induction. El Nino is heat release.

      That is what the paper is saying. It stays the climb but it finally releases the heat and the globe takes on the new regime. It never goes backward. Prove to me from any of the graphs of global warming it has – it does not – it continues to climb.

      We are headed for catastrophe eventually. We are on target, everything is on target and backs the science. What I find is this Scientist contrarian idiot Roy Spencer is hair plucking the hog pork. He tells you porkies. Selective cutting of the hog. With doublespeak and doused in ideology himself up to his own eye balls he is a drunken denying man reassuring only the gullible with selective non-global data readings.

      I am a Christian conservative BTW.

      • Ross if you ever bothered to look at the historical climatic record you would see how feeble the rise in global temperatures has been over the past 50 years.

      • Norman says:

        Ross Brisbane

        I have posted this information to those who claim AGW is a fact. Maybe you will look and provide me with some explanation as to what is going on with the data.

        https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

        On this link
        1) click “Visualize Data” virtual tab at lower left of page
        2) This brings up a lot of global graphs
        3) scroll through graphs to find Surface Net Total Flux
        4) Look at this graph from 2000 to 2015
        5) Provide an explanation on how AGW could be factual

        The CERES data could be wrong, I do not know how they obtained the data to make the graphs. I know CERES was used by Climate Scientists to develop their global energy budget graphs so they must believe the data is somewhat valid.

        If the CERES data is correct it shows no increase in radiant energy hitting the surface. If radiant energy is not increasing then AGW cannot be the explanation for a warming globe and one must look elsewhere. I would say even albedo change is not a factor since the radiant energy is flatline. The other explanation is that something is restricting the other energy loss mechanisms like evaporation or thermals.

        • Ross Brisbane says:

          Albedo has had an effect on global temperatures – mostly a cooling effect on long term trends. As for recent albedo trends, earthshine data shows increasing albedo from 1999 to 2003 but little to no trend from 2003. Satellites show little to no trend since 2000. The radiative forcing from albedo changes in recent years appears to be minimal.

          http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/CERES_Albedo.gif

          http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007…/2006GL028196.shtml

          In contrast, satellite data such as CERES is a global measure of the Earths reflected shortwave radiation, including the effects of all atmospheric and surface properties. It covers a broader spectrum than earthshine (0.35.0 m). An analysis of the CERES data finds no long term trend in albedo from March 2000 to June 2005. A comparison with 3 independent sets of satellite data (MODIS, MISR and SeaWiFS) also finds “remarkable consistency” between the 4 satellite results (Loeb 2007a).

          • Ross Brisbane says:

            Look at these graphs. Want to comment.

            COMPENSATING and CORRECTING for EL NINOS to EXPOSE AGW Warming.

            Bloggers are good at this you know and are better at it then Roy Spencer.

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/

          • Norman says:

            Ross Brisbane

            How do you explain that the Total Net Flux All-Sky (Shortwave down, Shortwave up, Longwave Down, Longwave Up all added together) shows no increase.

            The Net Flux should have increased by 2 Watt/m^2 to sustain an increased surface temperature if radiant energy (AGW) was the source of the increase.

            Satellites do not show an increase during this time (pause in warming) which makes sense with the CERES data. GISS shows a continuous temperature increase as your Tamino link shows. Where is the energy coming from to drive a temperature rise?

            The El Nino cycle is a short term condition of warming followed by cooling not a sustained warming. In order to keep a system warming you have to either increase the input energy or decrease the rate the energy is exiting. The Total radiant energy shows no increase.
            1st Law would not allow radiant energy to the cause of warming from 2000 to 2015.

      • rossisanass says:

        “Christian conservative” my ass

        • Ross Brisbane says:

          I am certainly NOT Alternative Right. Along with the thousands of young Christians who disagree with their traditional church hierarchy. The rat bag religious right cartel in America are up someones a???e beginning with the letter T.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Ross Brisbane…”El Nino now passed has lifted the regime of heat climb to a new level”.

        There is nothing in science relating El Ninos to anthropogenic warming. The 2016 EN was not nearly as strong as the 1998 EN which started at the baseline and rose 0.8 C. The 2016 version began at +0.3C and barely exceeded the 1998 version.

        • Ross Brisbane says:

          Gordon, So its all cooling is it! Do you understand what I posted at all. We deduct the heat from El Nino and we still get a strong anthropogenic warming trend! Like it or not! The charts of Spencer, I STRONGLY suggest look at rather then crticise me. Look at Spencer’s charts and tell me the lower below the line temps are not dramatically upward trending. In this case rather look at high peaks look at what is more more DISAPPEARING below the line by way of minimums.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Ross..”We deduct the heat from El Nino and we still get a strong anthropogenic warming trend!”

            No…two blatant climate alarmists claimed that, one of them Stephan Rahmstorf. You should check out his debate with Lindzen to see how far out his ideas really are.

            Here’s an analysis of the debate:

            http://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html

            From the analysis:

            “He [Rahmstorf] offers a lot of minor technical errors, for example arguing that there was no El Nino in 2005 (although an El Nino episode ended in JFM 2005)…”

            This is the guy you claim subtracted El Ninos from global warming and got a trend?

            more:

            “Rahmstorf also makes a typically layperson’s mistake when he thinks that the climate sensitivity can be measured “directly” without having any theory or model in mind. Incredibly, he seems to be using “fingerprints” as evidence for the greenhouse theory of the climate, even though the theoretical fingerprints clearly disagree with the reality”.

            and:

            “Richard Lindzen also doesn’t buy Rahmstorf’s bizarre comparison of climate science with general relativity …”

          • Bindidon says:

            Gordon Robertson on November 26, 2016 at 3:58 AM

            ‘He offers a lot of minor technical errors, for example arguing that there was no El Nino in 2005 (although an El Nino episode ended in JFM 2005); that AGW used to be outlandish decades ago (compare with the 1958 movie we discussed recently).’

            Well, Gordon Robertson… If you believe the blah blah produced years ago by a person like Lubos Motl: that’s your problem. Even the PDF original has disappeared!

            I like facts instead.

            Look first at the MEI index graphics:
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

            and then into the index data:
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html

            You see there that the 2005 edition was, with a MEI value around 1.0, one of the weakest since 1970.

            This low level must be compared with RELEVANT editions: see 1982/83, 1997/98 and, a bit lower, 2015/16.

            Stefan Rahmstorf was perfectly right: there has been NO RELEVANT El Nino in 2005.

  75. The global warming enthusiast are grasping at draws to keep their failed theory which fails on all the basic premises it is based on.

    Give me a break. A trash theory that will be trashed before this decade ends.

  76. ren says:

    “This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

    The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

    “Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”Great move TRUMP scrap its a total waste of money and time”.

      Note the usual alarmists quoted in the article, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth claimed in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why. He started the rumour about the missing heat being stored in the oceans.

      I would laugh myself silly if Trump shut down NASA GISS and shut up NOAA with regard to spouting utter propaganda.

      • It would be wonderful if he shut them all down because they are frauds.

      • Ross Brisbane says:

        You are so inane you Christian hypocrite. You do not give a stuff about your future generation. All that matters is your own hubris.

        Are you from PTL fame or unfame?

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Amen!

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Ross Brisbane,

          I’m not a Christian, but that’s irrelevant. Nature doesn’t care what your religion is.

          I’m curious why you would think I should give a “stuff about my future generation” as you say.

          What difference do you think it might make? Do you believe you can see into the future?

          I don’t give a stuff about your views about the future, any more than you give a stuff about mine. Feel free to take as much offence as you like. It’s free. My pleasure – no thanks required.

          Cheers.

          • Ross Brisbane says:

            Mike,

            As a matter of fact I think you beg the question. You think I can see the future! Guess. Obviously you are on the right track here.

            Mike “flying” Flynn – your banner thus reads- “I do not give a stuff about my future generations”

            You are a narcissist. And because perhaps I may able to see the future as you asked – your president is going to be become one of the most disliked presidents in your nations history.

            Tick Toc the countdown has begun.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ross Brisbane,

            If your ability to look into the future is as good as your psychic abilities, maybe you should try something a little easier, like solving the Riemann hypothesis.

            My country does not have a president, as you could have established quite easily by simply asking. As to being a narcissist, if not falling for the GHE nonsense makes me one, maybe you’re right.

            I asked you for a reason why I should worry about future generations, and you are unable to provide any reason. Maybe you just act at random, but I prefer to have at least a semblance of reason for doing things.

            I assume that the future will be what it will be. Any assumptions that my forebears made about the future are likely to be as accurate as any I might make. You might predict doom and disaster, I might be a little more optimistic.

            Trying to wipe out the human race by removing CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere doesn’t seem like a particularly smart thing to do. Both are essential for plant survival, and increasing populations require increased food supplies.

            Even Arrhenius hoped for additional warmth. His hypothesis that CO2 somehow provided heat, seems to be unfounded. Nobody has ever managed to increase the temperature of anything by surrounding it with CO2, so I’m not too worried about my descendants being boiled, fried, toasted or roasted. At least they’ll have plenty of good if there are increased CO2 and H2O levels.

            So no, I don’t really care what you think. If you choose to take offence, take as much as you like. Obviously, I don’t care. Maybe you can provide a logical reason why I should, but GHE believers don’t possess much logic or reason as a rule, otherwise they would not be so passionate about something that doesn’t exist.

            Cheers.

          • Mike: “His hypothesis that CO2 somehow provided heat”
            just goes to show how stupid you are.
            CO2 traps more heat – like a car parked in the sun.
            Try and understand the theory before you attempt to knock it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Chu En Ginsberg,

            CO2 does not “trap” heat, any more than a car in the sun “traps” heat. Foolish GHE cultists believe in magic – unfortunately magic doesn’t seem to be terribly reliable in the real world.

            All experimental evidence to date shows that placing anything but free space between a source of radiation and the target, results in less energy reaching the target. The result, not surprisingly, is that the object doesn’t get as hot.

            As to CO2, it’s relatively opaque to certain frequencies of EMR. Tyndall demonstrated that for some wavelengths, CO2 intercepts roughly 1750 times as much IR as dry air, for example.

            However, this means that the 4 molecules of CO2 per 10000 in the atmosphere intercept 7000 rays, and the other 9996 intercept 9996. Sorry, but O2 and N2 are not totally transparent to EMR of any frequency. Tyndall estimated 40% of the Suns energy did not reach the surface. I believe NASA puts the average figure at a little less, so Tyndall was a very able scientist, unlike the so-called “climate scientists” such as the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt.

            But to proceed. If you replace the air in a sealed chamber with 100% CO2, the temperature doesn’t rise. No heating. When CO2 absorbs energy for any length of time, its temperature rises. Conversely, when CO2 radiates energy for any length of time, it cools. That’s how CO2 is solidified to “dry ice”.

            No GHE. The Earth’s surface has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Additional heat is what causes thermometers to get hotter. Nothing else. Why anybody finds this surprising is beyond me.

            I’m fairly sure that more “real” scientists (Dr Spencer may be one), are questioning the GHE, based on more and more contradictory data. The lack of a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2 doesn’t help, either.

            Believe as you wish. I prefer fact to fantasy, even if it is more unsettling at times. That’s life!

            Cheers,

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Really against my better judgement to reply to one of your posts but I will still hope for the best. You have been completely brainwashed by the cult over at PSI. I read their posts and they are far from good science, more cultish than anything else. They lure gullible people like you into their web of false knowledge. You are a smart person but not willing to learn anything. That is the flaw of thinking one is smarter than they are, they are really easy to program with noodle science, sounds good at first but after thinking about it it is soft and has not solid basis of support.

            Here is an experiment you can perform to understand GHE. I gave it to Kristian on an earlier thread but it something the curious can do.

            You want an falsifiable test of GHE. Here it is and you can do it.

            Buy some dry ice. Purchase a low cost searchlight.

            At night turn on the searchlight and lie on the ground next to it and look up. Your eyes are EMR detectors. See what light returns to your eyes as you lie on the ground. Next step is to get your dry ice and put it on the ground by your searchlight and allow it to make an artifical fog around the light. Now lie down again and report what you see. Do you see light returning to your eyes from the fog particles? If you do indeed detect light (energy) than you have just validated the GHE. The only difference is use are using the visible range of light since your eyes do not detect IR but they are of the same substance, moving energy. If fog is able to send energy back to your eyes than logic follows Carbon Dioxide will do the same with IR (of certain wavelengths).

            They are already measuring the GHE but you are too brainwashed to accept real empirical data so you banter on and on saying noting but patting yourself on the back thinking you are somehow informed when actually you are delusional and not very scientific. Too bad you choose the path of ignorance. I can understand why though, “ignorance is bliss” you seem happy with your path since you generally post “cheers” to even people you most certainly disagree with.

            Here is once again empirical proof of the GHE effect. I can keep posting it as long as you post hoping to deprogram you and get you on the right path of truth and discovery.

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_583a482c6ede5.png

            empirical proof of GHE.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            Unfortunately for your odd GHE assertions, at night the temperature drops. No GHE. None.

            CO2 heats nothing. As a matter of fact, it prevents some energy from the Sun from ever reaching the surface. According to NASA (the believable part of NASA, not the part run by the pedestrian mathematician and self proclaimed climatologist Gavin Schmidt), around 35% of insolation is prevented from reaching the surface by the atmosphere in total.

            Radiative transfer equation results are supported by experiment and observations – the underlying physics appears sound.

            Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. As soon as anyone tried to prepare one, they realise how silly they’ll look. Maybe you’ve tried yourself, which is why you keep trying to convince people that the GHE cult doesn’t need to follow normal scientific procedures.

            By the way, who or what is PSI?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Ross: Trump could indeed be the world’s first big climate criminal.

            In 50 yrs it will be all he is known for.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I think maybe if you explain what you think the GHE is and why it might help to deprogram you and get you back on path with real science.

            Can you explain what you believe GHE is?

            You posted “Unfortunately for your odd GHE assertions, at night the temperature drops. No GHE. None.”

            I know you do not understand the concept. But what do you understand about the theory and where did you get the information to understand it? Or is all this your own misguided thought process?

            I will try again. GHE means that energy that would leave the Earth system is returned to the surface. It is a measured quantity.

            Here you can see the actual measured value.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_583a684b4047d.png

            The energy in this graph is the GHE. It is energy that is being generated by a warmed atmosphere that contains IR emitting gasses and clouds (if there be any above the sensor). This energy that is downwelling is absorbed by the Earth surface contributing to the NET surface energy budget.

            Can you explain what you think the GHE is and why?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, it’s clear by now that Flynn can’t explain anything.

            He has no interest — none — in data or evidence.

            Or learning.

            I doubt “Mike Flynn” is even his real name.

            He is a troll, but without their usual creativity.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Do you believe you can see into the future?”

            Do we know when solar and lunar eclipses will occur over the next 50 years?

            Is that seeing into the future?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You wrote –

            “I will try again. GHE means that energy that would leave the Earth system is returned to the surface. It is a measured quantity.”

            Unfortunately, the surface cools at night, as does a greenhouse. After a year, there is no assurance that the greenhouse is any hotter or colder than before.

            The problem with your statement is that you are assuming energy that leaves the surface leaves the surface temperature unchanged. This is not true, and any energy returned is insufficient to make up the deficit. No heat, no rise in temperature. Cooling, if radiation of energy occurs without being made up by a heat source of sufficient intensity.

            The Sun provides heat, when it shines. The temperature rises, and starts to fall as the Sun passes the zenith, generally.

            The temperature will also drop if a cloud or other obstruction interrupts the sunlight.

            Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. You may not like it, but’s that the way it is.

            No GHE. No heating due to CO2. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and will continue to do so for some time, lacking unforeseen circumstances.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Even though David Appell knows your nature (an ignorant troll) I think there is much hope for you to actually learn and quit being a troll.

            You actually stated this: “The problem with your statement is that you are assuming energy that leaves the surface leaves the surface temperature unchanged. This is not true, and any energy returned is insufficient to make up the deficit. No heat, no rise in temperature. Cooling, if radiation of energy occurs without being made up by a heat source of sufficient intensity.

            The Sun provides heat, when it shines. The temperature rises, and starts to fall as the Sun passes the zenith, generally”

            You are admitting that energy is returned to the surface. This is a first step in understanding the GHE. Others will not even accept this as real and argue strange and bizarre radiation physics to explain it away or do not accept the measurements are real.

            Now add this energy with the incoming solar energy and what do you get? I am hoping you will state more energy will reach the surface. Yes you lose some IR from the Sun in moving through the IR gases (which does not disappear but becomes part of the Downwelling IR flux) but it is less than the combination of Solar input and Downwelling IR.

            Also without GHE the surface would cool at a much greater rate and end much colder at night than it currently is (empirical evidence for this is the GHE of clouds at night vs clear nights, the temp drops much faster on a clear calm cloudless night than a calm thick cloudy night….GHE in action)

          • Kristian says:

            Norman says, November 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM:

            GHE means that energy that would leave the Earth system is returned to the surface.

            No. It “means” that energy that would leave the Earth’s surface never gets to leave the Earth’s surface.

            It’s all in the way you EXPLAIN the effect, Norman, not in the effect itself. The warm, massive atmosphere doesn’t ADD energy to the surface. That notion is just as ridiculous as always. What it does is reduce the amount of energy ESCAPING the surface per unit of time, at a particular surface temperature. Just like any piece of insulation would do. Insulation doesn’t increase the energy INPUT to the insulated object. It reduces its energy OUTPUT.

            It is a measured quantity.

            For the nth time, Norman: The “measured (as in ‘physically detected’) quantity” is ALWAYS the radiant HEAT only, the net LW to or from the detector. No “partial fluxes” inside a radiant heat transfer could ever be detected; it would be physically impossible, even if they were real separate entities (which they are NOT). No, these “partial fluxes”, like DWLWIR or UWLWIR, are ALWAYS and without exception CALCULATED quantities, based on two physically real inputs to the instrument’s computing program: 1) the net LW flux at the detector, and 2) the detector’s own temperature.

            I wrote to you about this (again!) on this very thread:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-229987

            There are two kinds of IR detectors, cooled and uncooled.

            The cooled ones are so-called “quantum detectors”. In order for them to produce a usable signal, they need a close-to-pure incoming radiant HEAT flux, because they don’t calculate anything, they only detect. That’s why [they’re] cooled to cryogenic temperatures. They simply won’t detect anything if they’re warm.

            The UNcooled ones, however, don’t need this. They’re so-called “thermal detectors” and only need to sense a change in temperature to produce an electronic signal. That is, just like the cooled detectors, they detect the “net LW”, the radiant heat, but it doesn’t need to be ‘pure’. The change from the net LW can be positive or negative (or zero), either way a signal will be produced and used as input to a calculation of hypothetical “partial fluxes” (up and down). The instrument also needs the temperature of the detector itself as input, otherwise no “partial flux” values can be found.

            You need to learn how this works, Norman. You’re constantly chastising Flynn for not reading and not thinking. But you’re no better yourself. You continue “like a programmed android”, just like he does …

            Here you can see the actual measured value.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_583a684b4047d.png

            No. It is NOT an “actual measured value”. It is an “actual CALCULATED value”. The actual measured values are only 1) the net LW at the detector, and 2) the detector temperature.

            The energy in this graph is the GHE. It is energy that is being generated by a warmed atmosphere that contains IR emitting gasses and clouds (if there be any above the sensor). This energy that is downwelling is absorbed by the Earth surface contributing to the NET surface energy budget.

            Oh, the confusion …

            The energy in this graph is simply a radiative (mathematically derived) expression of the effective temperature of the air layers in thermal contact with the intrument’s detector. There are no macroscopic fluxes of radiant energy moving around inside the atmosphere (or between the atmosphere and the surface) except the net LW one, the constant movement of energy from warmer to cooler regions. The temperature of the air is a product of its “internal energy” [U]. The atmosphere’s photon cloud is part of that internal energy. This energy doesn’t move anywhere. It’s just THERE. “Stored”. Until there’s a gradient in radiative intensity (in temperature). It then invariably moves spontaneously DOWN this gradient. It sure ain’t moving from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface, Norman.

            Norman says, November 26, 2016 at 8:43 PM:

            Here is an experiment you can perform to understand GHE.

            Sorry, Norman, but you just don’t get it.

            Buy some dry ice. Purchase a low cost searchlight.

            At night turn on the searchlight and lie on the ground next to it and look up. Your eyes are EMR detectors. See what light returns to your eyes as you lie on the ground. Next step is to get your dry ice and put it on the ground by your searchlight and allow it to make an artifical fog around the light. Now lie down again and report what you see. Do you see light returning to your eyes from the fog particles?

            So the fact that our eyes are able to see SW (visible) light reflected off of solid or liquid particles/droplets is somehow “proof” of the “GHE”?

            Your confusion on this subject runs deep …

            If you do indeed detect light (energy) than you have just validated the GHE. The only difference is use are using the visible range of light since your eyes do not detect IR but they are of the same substance, moving energy.

            Give me strength!

            Yes, but in the case of SW radiation, the energy is moving TOWARDS YOU, Norman. Because the source of that radiation is warmer than you! In the case of LW radiation, the energy is – if the source of that radiation is cooler than you, that is – moving AWAY FROM YOU.

            There is always a NET movement only. The macroscopic, probabilistic/statistical average of ALL individual photon movements (and intensities) inside the photon cloud.

            Hold your hand out in still air. You feel no movement. Why? The air molecules are all flying furiously about at ridiculous velocities. Why can’t you feel them crashing into your hand, “transferring their energy” to it? Because the individual movements (and collisions) of ALL the molecules average out to ZERO!

            What you feel is the air TEMPERATURE. No wind, no air movement. Only the temperature. And the air temperature that you feel is actually directly correlated with – a result of – the velocity at which the air molecules making up the air fly around. But specifically NOT with the different velocities of all individual molecules flying around. There’s of course a HUGE spectrum of different individual air molecule velocities. But that doesn’t matter at all. What matters is ONLY the macroscopic, probabilistic/statistical AVERAGE of ALL individual air molecule velocities, no matter what direction.

            Again, and I know I’ve been repeating this now ad nauseam, but you simply do not seem to take it to heart:

            You need to distinguish between the MICRO (quantum) and the MACRO (thermodynamic) realms in all this!

            What you are constantly referring to are MACROSCOPIC FLUXES, Norman. W/m^2. But then at the same time you are trying to justify the distinct existence of such a macroscopic flux from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface by appealing to QUANTUM principles. The fact that individual photons CAN and DO fly also from cooler to warmer regions.

            Problem is, Norman, you are fundamentally making a THERMODYNAMIC claim, and so it is completely meaningless and unhelpful referring to QUANTUM principles as somehow support for that claim.

            You seem utterly incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time …

            Yes, individual photons from the air strike the surface all the time, just as individual air molecules do. But the air isn’t thereby macroscopically/thermodynamically making an energy TRANSFER to the surface. You see the difference? Individual photons, individual air molecules vs. the air, the atmosphere. MICRO vs. MACRO. Quantum vs. thermodynamic principles and laws.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            1. Have you ever gotten in a car that has been sitting in the sun? It is darn hot in there. So contrary to what you’ve said, it certainly does trap heat.

            2. You keep repeating that at night, when there is no sun shining the earth cools. So therefore there is not GHE. What about a clear, dry night vs. a humid night? Much slower cooling of the earth on these nights. Have you experienced this? How to explain other than a GHE?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Norman…”Now add this energy with the incoming solar energy and what do you get? ”

            Before you go calling Mike Flynn an ignorant troll you had better get past this kind of juvenile, pseudo-science.

            Any IR being returned to the surface was produced by solar radiation in the first place. You cannot store that energy, recycle it, and claim it will increase surface temperatures.

            If you think that you have not the slightest idea about thermodynamics or the 2nd law in particular.

            Furthermore, there’s nothing in AGW theory to show how the surface, at a higher temperature, which warmed the GHGs, can be warmed by IR from a cooler source. In other words, there’s no reason the valence electrons which absorb IR in atoms should absorb IR of a lower frequency and intensity.

            AGW theory is a conglomeration of pseudo-science put together by people who really don’t understand basic physics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Nate…”Have you ever gotten in a car that has been sitting in the sun? It is darn hot in there. So contrary to what youve said, it certainly does trap heat”.

            The car, with doors and windows closed, traps heat because it traps the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99%+ of the air inside the car. The kinetic energy of those molecules is heat. Opening doors and windows cools the car by allowed heat to be removed by convection.

            Metal and real glass traps heat because it traps atoms/molecules. There is no such trapping mechanism in the atmosphere…nothing to trap the atoms associated with heat.

            When solar energy heats the surface, heat is transferred to the majority heat transporters in the atmosphere by conduction. The warmed air rises, but air is 99%+ molecules of N2 and O2. Are you claiming that GHGs in the atmosphere block those molecules from rising, or trap them?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon wrote:
        “Trenberth claimed in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.”

        No he didn’t.

        Learn before you speak! Good doggy.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          David Appell…”Trenberth claimed in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.

          No he didnt.”

          http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2331832

          “Oct. 12, 2009. From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and colleagues.

          The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant,

          I can find the originals if you insist. That’s after you get your foot out of your mouth.

    • Nate says:

      Trump doesnt need science. If he doesnt have the data he needs he just creates it, from the vacuum:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/tweet-flurry-president-elect-donald-trump-calls-recount-efforts-sad-n688761

      Seriously he says he wants to make America great again, but not in science. He wants to get rid of science for purely ideological reasons. If climate is changing -we dont need to know about. Luckily that is not how the military feels.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      fonzarelli says it is people like Chu who gave us Donald Trump.

      How could anyone be so clueless? It is not the “Little People” (I am assuming Chu is one of us) who created Donald Trump.

      Trump was created by the “Big People” who have mismanaged first world countries for the last 30 years. People who see “Climate Change” as a problem and “Open Borders” as a solution.

  77. ren says:

    Information from the GNR and PSP police as well as the Civil Protection Authority states that several roads in northern and central Portugal, in Vila Real, Porto and Bragana, were earlier today closed due to heavy snowfall.

    In Lisbon, local fire-fighters also registered a high number of callouts last night and during the early hours of this morning because of flooding and felled trees following heavy rain and strong winds.

    The Met Office placed eight mainland districts on Orange Alert today because of rain and snow.
    http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/roads-closed-due-to-snow-and-rain/40321

  78. Ossqss says:

    I am starting a petition for a new manned weather station for Gavin to be the lone employee on staff. North Sentinel Island weather station, yea that’s the ticket!

  79. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “Maybe because people dont see its effects in their daily lives.”

    Roy, this is a spectacular misunderstanding of what ACC is.

    The public doesn’t understand feedbacks. Apparently neither do you. We’re already committed to about 1.5 C of warming, and, with it, 15-30 meters of sea level rise. It’s already baked in.

    Your generation and mine are changing the climage for the next 100,000 years. 4,000 generations. Because we’re rich, but too cheap to pay for clean energy. Hey, not our problem.

    We’re already affecting extreme weather. Global warming is having a negative effect on crop production. The Arctic is probably gone

    Roy, you should attend some real science conferences, not just conferences where deniers gather in a safe refuge and console one another. What was the last real conference you attended, anyway?

    • Norman says:

      David Appell

      You like peer reviewed material in accepted science journals.

      What is your source for this claim: “The public doesnt understand feedbacks. Apparently neither do you. Were already committed to about 1.5 C of warming, and, with it, 15-30 meters of sea level rise. Its already baked in.”

      Where did you get the figure a 1.5 C global temperature increase will lead to a sea level rise of 15 to 30 meters? That is a considerable rise in sea level. Just wanted some verified source to this claim.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        If you look at this graph of sea level rise for over a century you can see that the current sea level rise on this graph is given at the current rate of 3 mm/year.

        https://robertscribbler.com/2015/05/04/global-sea-level-rise-going-exponential-new-study-records-big-jump-in-ocean-surface-height/

        At that rate it would take 5000 years to raise the sea level 15 meters.

        I would think if you are reacting to an event that will not even happen for many generations you can consider yourself an alarmist. This is no longer a rational scientific viewpoint but a highly irrational emotional based thought process. Hopefully you relax a bit and think things through.

        • David Appell says:

          “At that rate it would take 5000 years to raise the sea level 15 meters.”

          Actually somewhat less, since the rise won’t be linear. So an extrapolation over 5000 years is ridiculous.

          But yes, 15 meters will take a few millennia, probably.

          So what?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            YOU: “So what?”

            A slow rising sea level that will take thousands of years (provided another ice age does not begin and the sea level goes down and is converted into massive ice sheets on the land areas) is not a dire threat that needs to drastically change our current way of life or the strong need to go to totally unreliable wind power to lead to an unstable and sporadic energy source for future generations to suffer with.

            I am hoping humans will have harnessed fusion power long before the sea level becomes a threat to human survival.

        • David Appell says:

          “I would think if you are reacting to an event that will not even happen for many generations you can consider yourself an alarmist.”

          Who do you think will pay with 3 C of warming by the end of the century.

          Taxpayers. You and me. Count on it.

      • David Appell says:

        From a paper by David Archer.

        See Figure 3 of

        “The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2”
        David Archer & Victor Brovkin
        Climatic Change (2008) 90:283297
        DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Finally you come out into the open and show us who you are.

      You live in an upside down fantasy world which may explain why your blog has no appeal for anyone who can think. Usually I am too busy to waste time on you but currently I am house hunting in Mexico in case Donald Trump fails to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

      You say that a 1.5 degree temperature rise and a corresponding sea level rise is “baked in”. Only an idiot could believe that given all the hard science that shows CO2 has no significant effect on global temperature.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”The public doesnt understand feedbacks’.

      Neither does Gavin Schmidt, one of your demigods.

      Many explanations of positive feedback on the Net try to explain PF as an amplifier, which is sheer nonsense. PF cannot happen without an amplifier except in rare natural instances such as in certain resonant vibrations.

      The kind of PF required for AWG simply cannot exist in our atmosphere since there is no amplifier. Climate models think it can and that’s why they are wrong.

  80. tonyM says:

    David Appell:

    You keep making these alarmist predictions.

    What is the clear basis for this.

    Is it the modicum of unvalidated, extreme error prone garbage spewed out by models which as you say at best are will-o-the-wisp projections?

    Alternatively is it some great insights which has clear empirical evidence supporting some hypothesis. If so state the hypothesis clearly in quantified, falsifiable form and the clear experimental evidence to support it (and I don’t mean Al Gore experiments).

    After 150 years of this conjecture surely this would be simple if true.

    In any case if natural variation causes T increases this would fit in statistically with the norms from geologic history; we are currently in a relative ice age.

  81. David Appell says:

    My claims are all soundly grounded in the science.

    But I’m not going to explain them to somehow who dismiss them no matter what.

  82. Norman says:

    Kristain

    Your incredibly long and pointless post. Did you perform the experiment I told you to do on the last thread? I doubt you did. When you do this experiment come back as an expert or quit the rants about nothing.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2016-0-41-deg-c/#comment-230037

    Your point here is mindless. “Yes, but in the case of SW radiation, the energy is moving TOWARDS YOU, Norman. Because the source of that radiation is warmer than you! In the case of LW radiation, the energy is if the source of that radiation is cooler than you, that is moving AWAY FROM YOU.”

    The visible light that is moving to your eyes in the fog/seachlight example is not moving toward you because the fog droplets are warmer than you!! Good grief! They move toward you because they are redirected by the fog particles that are actually much colder than you and the only reason you see the light is because its straight path away from the source has been altered. What physics books do you read?

    Also an IR detector is not measuring the NET IR between surfaces! Good grief do my experiment I told you to do and you will see your current understanding of radiant energy is Wrong and needs update!
    Until you do the experiment your words hold zero meaning.

    The IR detector (above room temperature) focuses IR from a surface onto an sensing array. If the IR is warmer than the array the temperature output is positive, if the IR is less energetic the output is negative (in relation to the sensing array temperature).

    There is no NET measurement, it is only measuring the IR emitted from the surface it is pointed at.

    Your air temperature example clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of physics.

    You: “What matters is ONLY the macroscopic, probabilistic/statistical AVERAGE of ALL individual air molecule velocities, no matter what direction.”

    Only the molecules that come in contact with your body surface change the energy state of your surface. Those moving away from you have no impact at all.

    You: “Yes, individual photons from the air strike the surface all the time, just as individual air molecules do. But the air isnt thereby macroscopically/thermodynamically making an energy TRANSFER to the surface. You see the difference? Individual photons, individual air molecules vs. the air, the atmosphere. MICRO vs. MACRO. Quantum vs. thermodynamic principles and laws.”

    This would depend on what you consider an energy TRANSFER. Even if the surface or air temperature do not change there is a macroscopic energy transfer.

    Here is what you lack in your reasoning but you attribute the flaw to me. If you have a tank full of water with no input it has a static level. If you have the same tank at the same level but with a macroscopic inflow (one you can measure) and macroscopic outflow (one you can measure) are these two states the same?

    They both are at the same level but are they different? You can measure the flows in the second case. You can measure the IR or visible light flows just the same.

    Another one for you to try. You have a light source in a dark room and a solar cell connected to a current output. You direct the cell surface at the light and you read a current, turn the cell away from the light source and you pick up no current. The light flux has a direction. Now take two light sources that are different energy, maybe a 200 watt bulb and a 40 watt bulb. Have two solar cells aimed at each light. (Do the test in a dark room). Turn the 200 watt bulb on and measure the current. Turn off the 200 and turn on the 40 watt bulb, the second sensor will give a lower output. Now turn on both lights, your claim is that all the solar cell pointed at a light detects is the NET flow of light, that would be 200 in one direction and 40 in the other so each solar cell (according to your twisted logic) should just pick up the NET flow either 160 if the flows cancel or 240 if they add together. But if you look at the current of each cell it has not changed from when you had the lights on individually. The flux of energy reaching a detector only depends upon the source it is pointed at, there is no NET detection. You are wrong but waste a lot of time trying to convince people you know what you are talking about.

    • Kristian says:

      This would depend on what you consider an energy TRANSFER. Even if the surface or air temperature do not change there is a macroscopic energy transfer.

      No!
      There are still photons and air molecules flying in all directions. But there is NO MACROSCOPIC TRANSFER of energy, Norman. Can you PLEASE start thinking!?

      This is what I’m talking about. You do not understand and you do not read. There is no macroscopic (thermodynamic) energy transfer if the temps are equal. What are you on?

      You need to distinguish between what individual photons and air molecules do and what the air/atmosphere does, what the probabilistic average of ALL those individual movements is. MICRO (quantum) vs. MACRO (thermo), Norman.

      I will keep reminding you of this simple point as long as you stubbornly and inanely continue to claim that the cool atmosphere sends a macroscopic radiant flux down to the warmer surface, ADDING ENERGY to it, directly warming it some more in the process, just like the solar flux does.

  83. Kristian says:

    Norman says, November 27, 2016 at 1:23 PM:

    Your incredibly long and pointless post. Did you perform the experiment I told you to do on the last thread? I doubt you did. When you do this experiment come back as an expert or quit the rants about nothing.

    It seems pointless to you, Norman, because you have a total mental block when it comes to the things I’m trying to explain to you. Everything I tell you immediately repels like water off the duck’s back. You have simply decided to REFUSE to even CONSIDER my perspective on this, and so instead you just go on and on and on and on with trying to somehow “convince” me to see – by posting essentially the same kind of “experiment” for me to “perform”, even though I’ve told you for ages that I know PERFECTLY well your position on this, you don’t have to tell me – that these instruments really do meaure a downwelling flux from somewhere cooler. They don’t, Norman. I mean, how thick can one get!?

    I quote:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
    “MEASUREMENT OF LONG WAVE DOWNWARD RADIATION

    The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:

    E_net = E_in – E_out

    Where:
    E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m]
    E_in – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m]
    E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m]

    The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

    E_net = U_emf/S

    Where:
    E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m]
    U_emf – thermopile output voltage [V]
    S – sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m]

    The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.

    To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

    E_out = σT^4

    Where:
    E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth
    [sic] surface [W/m]
    σ – Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(mK^4)]
    T – Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

    From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so-called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

    E_in = U_emf/S + σT^4

    Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

    As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.

    (My emphasis.)

    This is an altogether uncontroversial description of how these “measurements” are actually made, Norman. It is no secret – thermal detectors such as these invariably DETECT the net LW and CALCULATE the hypothetical UWLWIR and DWLWIR “partial fluxes”.

    Why won’t you concede this simple point, Norman? Why is it SOOO hard for you? What have you got to lose? I wonder …

    • Kristian says:

      Sorry, all the W/m’s in the equations should really be W/m^2.

      • Are you still studying?
        I hear you are enrolled at The University of Wikipedia.

        • Kristian says:

          Well, if you want it straight from the horse’s mouth, an active manufacturer of these instruments, here’s Kipp & Zonen (maybe you’ve heard of them):

          A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the radiation exchange between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The detector signal output can be positive or negative.

          For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative.

          In order to calculate the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.

          http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true

          And:

          The downward atmospheric long-wave radiation can be calculated with Formula 1 by measuring the detector output voltage U_emf [V], the housing temperature T_b [K], and taking the sensitivity calibration factor S [V/W/m^2] into account.

          L_d = U_emf/S + 5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4 (Formula 1)

          L_d – Downward atmospheric long-wave radiation [W/m^2]

          U_emf/S – Net radiation [W/m^2] (difference between the downward longwave radiation emitted from the atmosphere and the upward irradiance of the CGR 4 detector)

          5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4 – Upward irradiance of the CGR 4 detector [W/m^2]

          Note that the net radiation term (U_emf/S) is mostly negative, so the calculated downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is smaller than the detector’s upward irradiance (5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4).

          This refers to the net radiation within the pyrgeometer, not the ‘net radiation’ as referred to in 2.2.5.

          http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/38/Manual-CGR4-Pyrgeometer?ShowInfo=true

          (My emphasis.)

  84. Norman says:

    Kristian

    The NET they talk about is the Net radiation between instrument and the flux in the direction the instrument is pointed. As you stated, if the instrument were cooled to near absolute zero the reading would just be of the flux from either the surface (if it is pointed at the surface) or the sky (if such detector is pointed up). In this case the NET is only the flux from the direction the instrument is pointed at. It does not need to calculate a flux based upon what the overall heat flow is with surface to atmosphere. The only flux such a device will measure is the incoming IR in the direction it is pointing.

    I can’t concede a point that is wrong and incorrect science.

    Here are two cases.

    Point the pyrgeometer at the Earth’s surface on a cold clear night and get a reading that converts the change of current into a radiation reading.

    Now warm the surface with some type of buried heater. The air above is no warmer but I will think the pyrgeometer will show a higher reading for the Earth’s surface than in the unheated case. The radiation given off by the atmosphere above has no effect on the reading of this instrument. It will only respond to the surface tempeature and not some NET between Earth and sky. Sorry you are just wrong and do some tests it will show you. I have already done mine with handheld FLIR now it is your turn. You can talk a lot and post alot but do the experiments. They are not hard or costly.

  85. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    You wrote –

    “Now add this energy with the incoming solar energy and what do you get?”

    Nothing at all. Where do think this “extra energy” come from?

    Not from the Sun, obviously. The atmosphere has a temperature, even at night!

    So where does your extra “energy” come from? From the surface, of course. Nothing magical there. Energy emitted by the surface means that the surface cools, That’s a fact, and you can’t get around it.

    No heating. No “added” energy appearing as if by magic. Energy can be neither created or destroyed. Removing CO2 from air reduces its temperature not one bit.

    As Tyndall showed by experiment, removing CO2 between a heat source and a very sensitive thermopile setup, results in an increase in temperature, not a decrease. Basic physics.

    GHE adherents claiming that the Earth is getting hotter each year due to CO2 in the atmosphere, are quite simply mistaken. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere prevents the surface from heating as much as if they were not present.

    H2O is the most important GHG. The places with the least GHG are places like the Libyan desert. Hottest places on Earth, least GHGs.

    I’ll leave you to your fantasy.

    Cheers.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      Sorry but you got your physics wrong and the Tyndall experiment did in fact prove what you reject. Think about it if you will.

      He removed CO2 between a heat source and the sensitive thermopile increased in temperature. Yes exactly what GHE is saying. I know you do not understand it but follow the logic and you will.

      The experiment demonstrated the CO2 was absorbing the energy from the heat source. Logically, if it was not, the thermopile temperature would not change if the CO2 was between or not between the source and detector. The experiment clearly shows what happens when the carbon dioxide is removed, more energy from the heat source hits the detector (it heats up). This is what would happen to the Earth’s surface if you removed the CO2, more energy would leave to a satellite detector outside the atmosphere. Exactly as Tyndall shows.

      Now for the physics. If the carbon dioxide is absorbing the energy from the heat source the energy does not disappear. What happens to it, some of it is not making it to the detector? So the same amount of energy is present but where did it go? Some of it went back to the heat source and all around. The carbon dioxide caused the light to diffuse and go in all directions. When removed the path of energy to the detector was more direct and it heated. The very experiment you describe fits the GHE perfectly.

      In his experiment the amount of returning energy to the source was not tested for but on Earth the returning (downwelling IR flux) is absorbed by the surface and the rate of cooling is reduced.

      • Kristian says:

        Norman says, November 27, 2016 at 5:37 PM:

        The experiment clearly shows what happens when the carbon dioxide is removed, more energy from the heat source hits the detector (it heats up). This is what would happen to the Earths surface if you removed the CO2, more energy would leave to a satellite detector outside the atmosphere. Exactly as Tyndall shows.

        You shouldn’t confuse a controlled experiment in a lab with the real, dynamic Earth system, Norman. There is no linear connection. You know, atmospheric circulation, water.

        If the carbon dioxide is absorbing the energy from the heat source the energy does not disappear. What happens to it, some of it is not making it to the detector?

        No. The energy absorbed by the CO2 molecule is transferred conductively (via collision) to a N2 or O2 molecule, converted into molecular kinetic energy (thermalised) and taken up the atmospheric column through the bulk air process of buoyancy/convection, to be radiated to space at some later stage from somewhere else within the troposphere.

        We’re in a dynamic steady state. No more net energy piles up inside the atmosphere. Meaning, all the energy coming in from the Sun escapes back to space over a particular cycle (diurnal or annual).

        The steady state temperature was reached during the original internal energy build-up phase towards the steady state (where the HEAT OUT from the Earth to space finally equals the HEAT IN from the Sun).

        • Norman says:

          Kristain

          Sorry to disagree but you are not reading the experiment. Check an IR spectrum of Carbon Dioxide. They are running IR through pure CO2 to get a valid spectrum, there is not N2 or O2 to collide with.

          • Kristian says:

            Yes, and I’m saying you can’t compare this experiment with what happens in the REAL EARTH SYSTEM. YOU’RE the one who drew a direct parallel, remember?
            “This is what would happen to the Earths surface if you removed the CO2, more energy would leave to a satellite detector outside the atmosphere. Exactly as Tyndall shows.”

          • Norman says:

            Kristain

            Sorry to disagree with you once more but you are not correct.
            You can compare the two. They are really the same.

            Here.
            https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

            Surface longwave IR UP is around 395 Watts/m^2.

            Here:
            https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp

            Longwave IR leaving the Earth’s atmosphere (TOA) is around 240 Watts/m^2

            If the GHG’s were not in the atmosphere the Upwelling IR and the IR leaving at the TOA would be nearly identical (only difference would be the slight lower energy since going up a hundred miles will give you a little bigger area for the same amount of energy.

            The real facts suggest you are not correct with your statement.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      I wonder how many times one has to explain things to you and then you fail to “get it” but act like you were never told.

      Your Libyan desert example. Please please at least try to read this. Water is a complex player in climate systems. It does not just cause a warmer surface via GHE when in vapor phase. If water vapor did not condense into water or water evaporate you would understand. Water vapor creates a GHE in that form. Dry areas still have a GHE since they still have water vapor in the air.

      Here I will help with your understanding.

      Libya graph. Look at the Downwelling flux
      https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

      And the tropical Africa
      https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

      If the links work you will find the desert downwelling flux averages 335 W/m^2 while the Tropical air has a downwelling flux of around 400 W/m^2.

      The tropics have more energy from GHE hitting its surface but it is cooler. Why? Water in liquid form removes a large amount of energy (cooling) in evaporation. The warm tropics is cooled by clouds and evaporation so the higher amount of GHE does not lead to a warmer surface.

      With the surface you can’t just take the radiation and determine the temperature or make any inclusive conclusions. There are other processes cooling the surface besides outgoing radiation, most heating is caused by radiation but a mass of warm air from one location can move into another warming it or a cold air mass can cool a location so it is not all radiation.

  86. Norman says:

    Kristain

    I posted that you could take an IR detector (maybe use a FLIR device) and try and heat the ground. Far better would be to leave the temperature of the ground alone with the detector facing the ground (not sky). Now heat the air above the detector by some means and demonstrate that it is hotter by taking a second FLIR and pointing it to the sky to see if it detects your warming (use a blowtorch if you want or a hot coil).

    Now monitor the IR detector pointed at the ground. Make the air above much hotter than the surface (but high enough that the heated air does not directly warm the surface you are measuring).

    In the first case if the ground was warmer than the air the flow of “heat” was from ground to air. Your claim is that this is all the detector is able to sense and then it calculates what the flux should be even though there is no flux from the surface, the flux is a Net flux between surface and air and that is all you claim is detectable.

    So now if the air is warmer the direction of heat is from air to surface so the detector pointed at the Earth should show cooling because the flow is now away from the detector. I know if you actually test it (which now seems unlikely) you will find the sensor pointed at the surface does not change regardless if the air is colder, warmer, same temp as ground. The sensor will only detect a macroscopic flow of energy from the surface into the sensor and will only change if the surface temperature changes. So while you are busy learning how radiant energy really works (and not your own version) take some ice and pour it on the ground and you will now see the sensor changing its value regardless of what the air is doing (you can heat or cool the air above to demonstrate that your idea is not correct and experimentally proven untrue). Like I stated not hard tests to perform and not too expensive. You might even like doing it.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Norman,
      I’m not sure what you are arguing about, maybe I’m misunderstanding you because of my little knowledge of the English language, but in case you are arguing that the a FLIR device is measuring one-way flux you are wrong, Kristian is right when he wrote that the inner temperature sensor is used to compensate for the instrument temperature which is radiating for that.
      Older version of FLIR devices were cooled on the opposite side of the thermophile to avoid the change in polarity of the sensor.
      The only reason you don’t measure the change of air temperature when you point the FLIR to the ground is that what it matters for keeping the forward measurement right is the internal temperature of the device, which is designed to have a container with an higher heat capacity than the inner thermopile and thermistor, so the second is used to compensate the first.
      I already did it, just open your FLIR thermometer and blow cold air only on the inner thermistor only whit a hairdryer (my own had it just close to the thermopile and I just had to put a cardboard to thermally insulate them).

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Sorry I should reread what I write before click on [Submit Comment] button, the last part was very bad write and misses the final goal.

        I rewrite it here:

        I already did it, just open your FLIR thermometer and blow cold air only on the inner thermistor with an hairdryer (my own had it just close to the thermopile and I just had to put a cardboard to thermally insulate them), then see the temperature readings how they change despite the FLIR input slit points to the same constant temperature object.

        Again have a great day.

        Massimo

      • Kristian says:

        Massimo PORZIO says, November 28, 2016 at 3:00 AM:

        Hi Norman,
        (…) but in case you are arguing that the a FLIR device is measuring one-way flux you are wrong, Kristian is right when he wrote that the inner temperature sensor is used to compensate for the instrument temperature which is radiating for that.
        Older version of FLIR devices were cooled on the opposite side of the thermophile to avoid the change in polarity of the sensor.

        Thank you, Massimo. I really do wonder why it’s apparently sooo hard to admit a mistaken idea like this and concede such an obvious point. After being asked a hundred times over to just look it up yourself. I can only guess it’s ultimately about pride and nothing else …

        Interested readers can also go here and read about pyrgeometers, the radiometric instruments used to “measure” so-called downwelling LW radiation, about how they REALLY do their “measurements”:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-230326
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-230363

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi Kristian,
          I don’t believe Norman is in bad-faith, I know that he’s a good guy. Sometimes it happen that one could misunderstand the way things works.

          Just to say (not that it means so much), I agree with most of the things you wrote here.

          Have a great day.

          Massimo

        • Norman says:

          Massimo PORZIO

          Hi, I do understand the operation of the room temperature IR detectors and I understand your test.

          I also understand that the IR is detecting a Net between incoming IR and its own temperature. If the internal detector is super cooled than the contribution from the sensor array is insignificant and you no longer need a calculated amount as it will measure the incoming radiation directly based upon how this radiation changes the voltage of the sensing element.

          This is not the “NET” radiation in question with my ongoing (several threads now with no resolution) debate with Kristian.

          It seems he believes if the answer is calculated it makes it an invalid number. That is besides the point I am making.

          He will argue that you cannot measure the individual flux of the Earth’s surface that is distinct and unique and only based upon the surface temperature and its emissivity. He believes that you can only measure a “NET” heat flow between Earth and sky.

          My claim is the detector will measure the IR flux coming off the surface it is pointed at. That is the purpose to many posts for him to experiment with. If the sensor is pointed at the Earth’s surface is will measure the flux coming off the surface (if you use a room temperature sensor you will measure the NET between surface and sensor, the flux of the atmosphere has no bearing on the reading).

          I might have to try and get the idea down better if you respond.

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            Here is a document look at section 2.4 (Operation)

            It explains how these instruments measure downwelling IR.

            http://www.rg-messtechnik.de/assets/files/Aktuelle-PDF/ba_pyrgeometer_sgr_e.pdf

            The calculated downwelling IR is only based upon the actual value of the real downwelling directional flux (heading toward Earth’s surface) and the temperature of the instrument itself (some even have heating elements in them to control temperature). The upwelling flux from the surface does not make it into the detector and is not picked up at all when pointed up, it is not part of the equation at all, it is a distint upward flux and will not make it into the sensor and so is not needed for calculation.

            I think you will note in your own post: “Note that the net radiation term (U_emf/S) is mostly negative, so the calculated downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is smaller than the detectors upward irradiance (5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4).”

            If you point the same instrument down to the Earth the net radiation term is positive since the surface is generally warmer than the sensor temperature.

          • Kristian says:

            Norman,

            Stop this ridiculous obstinacy of yours!

            Here’s what your section 2.4 is saying (essentially the same as what I quoted above!):
            “The downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is calculated automatically inside the pyrgeometers with Formula L_d by measuring the detector output voltage U_emf [μV], the housing temperature T_b [K], and taking the sensitivity calibration factor S [μV/W/m^2] into account.

            L_d = U_emf/S + 5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4 (formula L_d)

            L_d Downward atmospheric long-wave radiation [W/m^2]

            U_emf/S Net radiation [W/m^2] (difference between the downward longwave radiation emitted from the atmosphere and the upward irradiance of the SGR detector)

            5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4 Upward irradiance of the SGR detector [W/m^2]

            Note: The net radiation term (U_emf/S) is mostly negative, so the calculated downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is smaller than the detector’s upward irradiance (5.67 * 10^-8 * T_b^4).”

            This refers to the net radiation within the pyrgeometer, not the net radiation as referred to in 2.2.5.

            How bloody hard is it to read, Norman!

            DWLWIR = NET LW + UWLWIR
            E_net = E_in – E_out
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-230326

            I’ve had it with you …! You’re worse than Flynn!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman.

            Kristian is right because the only thing that the inner sensor can do (it’s a thermocouple) is detecting the incoming radiation by cooling or heating the surface exposed to the input slit, and return it by an electron flux due to the different electrons mobility at the two ends of the thermocouple junction.
            That process of temperature change on that exposed surface involves the sensor radiation too, and the sensor radiation depends on the temperature of the inner of the whole instrument.
            The fact that you pointed it to the warmed air and it didnt show the temperature it is just because you are not really measuring a temperature but the radiation of the whole IR media you are pointing to (the air).
            Into a very old school book, long time ago, I read that to apply the Stephan Boltzmann to gases these must be enclosed in a solid box otherwise the gases return not a temperature dependant radiation, but just the photons released by the IR active gases only. Those photons arent only a function of their temperature but also function of the IR active gases concentration by volume. This is the reason that I dont agree with Dr. Spencer believing that the measurement of a FLIR thermometer pointed to the sky returns the average temperature along the full depth of the instrument range. Only enclosing the air gases in a box give a correct temperature measurement of its inner.
            IMHO Dr. Spencer was right if and only if he already knows the IR gases concentration by volume and which correction apply as emissivity for the measurement. Anyways, the pressure of the whole gases should be sufficiently high to allow an average molecular free path time far lesser than the IR active gases photons extinction time. Only this way the flux should sufficiently reflect the gases temperature. Otherwise the flux should be related to the re-emission of photons absorbed by the surrounding emitters, mostly outside the instrument FOV (other IR active gases molecules or solid/liquid objects).

            At ground level, here on Earth, the pressure should warrant this last constrain indeed.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            I apologize, but I just realized that my damned text editor removed all apostrophes from my previous message.
            Sorry

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            I think it is impossible for me to comprehend what your complaint is. I think it has to do with the fact I use measure and you claim it calculates the IR flux.

            It really does not matter what it does as long as it gives a valid reading.

            It takes in IR energy in from the direction the sensor is pointed at. If upward, only downwelling IR reaches the sensor. The upwelling IR you put in the equation is based upon the sensor temperature only. If the sensor was super cooled than the sensor would actually measure the amount of IR coming down from the sky and not need to calculate the amount since the sensor is not contributing any IR. All the change in voltage would be do to downwelling IR. The surface IR would have not make it into the sensor at all since it is moving up and away and the senor housing is blocking this IR from reaching the sensing material.

  87. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    Of course CO2 absorbs EMR. So does all matter in the universe.

    You asked what happened to the energy absorbed by the CO2. Well, when the energy source is removed, the CO2 loses the energy by radiation, of course.

    In all directions. A small amount hits the thermopile. The CO2 keeps cooling. As it is now below the temperature of the thermopile, the temperature of the thermopile keeps dropping towards equilibrium with the surrounding environment, as Tyndall noted.

    Your GHE heating hypothesis is incapable of description in scientific terms. This is why none exists. This is a fact, whether you approve or not.

    The Moon’s surface shows what happens in the absence of any GHG. It heats faster and further after the same period of exposure. Fact. In the absence of the Sun’s radiation, it cools faster and further after the same period. Fact.

    No GHE. Not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. Fact.

    All your proposed “experiments” are nothing of the sort. Without a falsifiable hypothesis to check against, they are just so much irrelevant nonsense. The atmosphere has a temperature. Hardly novel. CO2 can be heated? Nothing new there. CO2 cools? Not astonishing at all.

    Still no planetary heating due to CO2. No GHE.

    Remove the CO2 from a sample of air, and the temperature changes not at at all. You may find this amazing, but I don’t.

    Cheers.

    • “You asked what happened to the energy absorbed by the CO2. Well, when the energy source is removed, the CO2 loses the energy by radiation, of course.”
      So, you agree that the CO2 is initially heated – yes?
      If you put a blanket of CO2 around the moon, it (the CO2) too will be heated- yes?
      If the blanket is heated – then so too will the surface – yes?
      This is the GHE in action.
      Simple really.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Chu,

        As Tyndall found, and Norman agrees, putting CO2 between a heat source and a target results in the target cooling. Of course the CO2 heats, but less than the surface does in the absence of CO2.

        The atmosphere heats each day. Not nearly as much as the surface, generally. Without the atmosphere, the surface gets far hotter. And at night, the surface generally cools faster than the overlaying atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, even faster.

        Sorry, but still no GHE – playing with words won’t help.

        Your blanket analogy is just silly. Putting a blanket between you and the Sun makes you colder, not hotter. Thats why firemen wear thick clothing, with good reflective insulation qualities.

        And so on. Fill a room with CO2. The temperature wont rise. Try and figure out whether a gas cylinder contains CO2 or argon, or even whether it’s full or empty, just by measuring its temperature. No GHE. No magical CO2 heating properties. None.

        Face facts or ignore them as you wish. The facts don’t care.

        Cheers.

        • Ball4 says:

          “As Tyndall found, and Norman agrees, putting CO2 between a heat source and a target results in the target cooling.”

          Then Norman agreed with a nitwit.

          Actually Prof. Tyndall, in his own words, found putting CO2 between a heat source and a target resulted in the target warming.

          He was so surprised that added room temperature CO2 could do so, he drilled holes in his apparatus and inserted mercury thermometers on which the indicated gas temperature also increased with added CO2 confirming the thermopile. And ran many more replicable tests to be sure before presenting results.

          The experimental facts don’t care what nitwits write. Read Prof. Tyndall.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            The IR spectrum of Carbon Dioxide seems to contradict what you are claiming.

          • Ball4 says:

            Nothing on that page contradicts Prof. Tyndall’s own words, Norman. I am not claiming anything new, read Prof. Tyndall. Put nitwits on ignore and call blocker.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            I do like your deep knowledge of original texts from various scientists and usually like to consider your posts.

            I did find John Tyndall’s original experiment but I do not find your claim but I only scan read through it. Maybe you can direct me to what page you are finding your statements from. Thanks.

            http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

          • Ball4 says:

            p.7: “…it requires the same amount of heat to move the (galvonometer) needle from 1 (degree) to 2 (degrees) as to move it from 35 to 36. Beyond this limit the degrees are equivalent to larger amounts of heat.”

            p.10: “Those who like myself have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermanous, will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects. I was indeed slow to believe it possible that a body so constituted, and so transparent to light as olefiant gas, could be so densely opake to any kind of calorific rays; and to secure myself against error, I made several hundred experiments with this single substance.”

            p.32: “I subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose…”

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      Your own words indicate you are close to understanding the concept of GHE. Here you state: “The Moons surface shows what happens in the absence of any GHG. It heats faster and further after the same period of exposure. Fact. In the absence of the Suns radiation, it cools faster and further after the same period. Fact.”

      So you are then making the claim that GHG will keep the surface warmer at night, correct?

      For some reason you cannot grasp that a sphere, with one side exposed to radiant energy, has some temperature in reality. You may not be able to measure it but I would tend to disagree. The Earth and Moon have large surface areas so it becomes expensive to put billions of temperature sensors all around the surface to get a very accurate average temperature but that does not mean there is an actual temperature there that can be compared.

      If you move past this, YOU: “You asked what happened to the energy absorbed by the CO2. Well, when the energy source is removed, the CO2 loses the energy by radiation, of course.”

      But in the Earth or Moon system the energy source (Sun) is never removed. It is always adding energy to a half of each system.

      The GHE does not imply that the Carbon Dioxide is somehow warming the planet on its own. Your own words describe the GHE. The carbon dioxide absorbs the energy emitted by the solar heated Earth surface (IR). It then warms up as long as it is absorbing IR and emits its own energy in all directions. It is much less than the energy being emitted by the surface (as it only makes up less than a 1/5 of the energy being returned to the surface). This energy then allows the Solar energy to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than it would without the returning energy.

      GHE is only a relative state when compared to another state, one with GHG and one without. Without any GHG present the Sun would still heat the surface. The air above would warm but it would not emit IR since N2 and O2 emit an extremely small amount of IR, if you look at HITRAN data base Nitrogen is maybe a trillion times less IR active than CO2. I do not think I can link you to the HITRAN data you might have to look at it yourself.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Norman,

        A roomful of air has an air temperature. The air is warmed by the surrounding walls, roof, floor etc. otherwise the gas would proceed rapidly to absolute zero. The gas generates no heat. It radiates energy continuously if it is above absolute zero.

        Replace the air with pure CO2. The CO2 makes no difference to the temperature. If you replace the 100% CO2 with another gas, the temperature will not change.

        Your supposed GHE only works with sunlight, it would seem. Not inside, in the shade, at night, and so on. No heating due to CO2. Heating requires heat – CO2 provides none. It doesn’t add, or multiply heat.

        No GHE.

        Cheers.

  88. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    As you wrote –

    “He removed CO2 between a heat source and the sensitive thermopile increased in temperature. Yes exactly what GHE is saying. I know you do not understand it but follow the logic and you will.”

    I see. Removing CO2 allows more heat from the heat source (the Sun) to reach the surface, which gets hotter as a result. Removing CO2, does, as you said, result in an increase in temperature.

    I agree. Remove the CO2, and the temperature increases. Experimentally verified.

    If you are claiming the GHE results in reduced temperatures, and increased GHGs result in lower temperatures, again I agree. This is exactly what happens.

    All the sciencey cultism pretending that adding GHGs between the heat source and the target results in higher temperatures is just fatuous nonsense. Exactly the opposite happens, as theory, experiment and observation show.

    That is why GHE enthusiasts have to resort to discussing overcoats, FLIR, pyrgeometers, or anything to avoid experimental results such as Tyndall’s. Facts wont vanish just because you don’t like them. Real scientists take note, and change their opinions if necessary.

    Cheers.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      I do not agree with your statements: “If you are claiming the GHE results in reduced temperatures, and increased GHGs result in lower temperatures, again I agree. This is exactly what happens.”

      Roy Spencer (who has long grown tired of this endless debate) has already explained it. It depends upon where your sensor is. The surface will be warmer overall. The loss of IR from the Sun (absorbed by GHG) will allow less Solar IR from reaching the surface, but the IR from the atmosphere, that would not exist without GHG, coming down will keep the overall Earth’s surface warmer than if the gas was not present. So GHG will result in reduced PEAK surface temperature (which you seem stuck on like an repeat loop in a computer program, I would say a glitch in your internal software that you cannot free yourself from) but they will also result in much warmer low temperatures and when all added together the loss of PEAK temp is much less than the gain of much warmer lows.

      Can try the apple analogy for you. I attempted this with a poster named “g.e.r.a.n” it did not work for him.

      You have 100 apples coming in (say the Moon) and that represents Solar input during day. On the Earth you have 70 apples coming in. Now this is on a continuous basis (sunlit side). On the dark side the Moon is losing 80 apples but the Earth is only losing 10. So the Moon gains 100 but loses 80, the average number of apples at any given time on the Moon is 60 (100 plus 20 divide by 2). The Earth has 70 but loses 10 so still has 60 on the night side (70 plus 60 divide by 2 is 65). By losing less apples, even though it gains less, it averages more apples overall. Not the best example but I really don’t know how to reach the mind of yours.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      You’re wrong – and right.

      An object on the surface will heat up progressively after sunrise. It will continue to heat, until it starts to cool. You will note that even while the Sun is still shining on the object, it is cooling. The object is radiating energy faster than it can absorb it. This continues, the Sun goes down, the object continues to cool until the Sun rises.

      The presence of GHGs prevents the object from reaching a higher maximum, and from reaching a lower minimum, as any mild insulator does.

      However, there is no rise global temperatures. You may not agree that the Earth has cooled since its surface was molten. However, it seems reasonable that the Earth’s initial condition was a big molten blob. It no longer has a molten surface. The surface has cooled.

      Rock which has been exposed to sunlight for thousands or millions of years, is no hotter than a house built upon it recently.

      Molten lava, recently cooled, is no colder or hotter than previous flows.

      CO2 makes nothing hotter. Claims of “hottest year EVAH!” may be true, but are due to additional heat – quite possibly due to the combustion of fossil fuel (creating CO2 in the process), nuclear power generation, heat as a result of renewable energy production, and so on.

      Your analogy is irrelevant, and wrong anyway.

      The number of apples leaving the Earth’s surface is greater than the number reaching it, as Fourier pointed out. Hence the cooling of the Earth since its creation. Scientists like Fourier, Tyndall, and Kelvin used the cooling rate to calculate the age of the Earth. They were all wrong, due to their ignorance of the heat generated internally by radioactive decay.

      Still no GHE. Not even a falsifiable hypothesis involving CO2. Just more diversion into irrelevant and pointless analogies.

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        You may choose to reconsider your current train of thought.

        You seem to cling to the notion that the Earth’s surface temperature is dependent upon the overall temperature of the Earth and because the core has slowly (very slowly) cooled after a few billion years that the surface is cooling still to this day.

        You can have a cold asteroid in space that moves closer to the Sun and its Sun facing surface will heat up regardless if the internal temperature is very cold.

        You point out this: “Your analogy is irrelevant, and wrong anyway.

        The number of apples leaving the Earths surface is greater than the number reaching it, as Fourier pointed out. Hence the cooling of the Earth since its creation.”

        Sorry but you are wrong in your thoughts. The surface temperature is not maintained by the internal Earth temperature.

        Here read this:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

        Internal Earth energy reaching surface is estimated to be 47 Terawatts while the energy from the Sun is 173,000 terawatts.

        The internal energy of the Earth is responsible for 0.03% of the surface energy budget.

  89. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    The HITRAN links took. You can see Nitrogen has a vertical of 10^-28

    In the same units (so you can compare them directly) Carbon Dioxide will have units 3×10^-18 about 300 billion times more intense.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      Why am I supposed to be impressed? Gases have different physical properties? So what?

      Black plastic garbage bags are relatively transparent to IR, quite opaque to visible light. Should they create an anti – GHE?

      Try finding a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. You might assume such a thing might exist, but no. No science in sight.

      That’s what comes of thinking that a mathematician, (even a second rate one), automatically understands the scientific method. Might as well just consult an astrologer! A lot cheaper, and just as accurate, wouldn’t you say?

      Cheers.

  90. Fox says:

    I am not a scientist but I do know one thing. A scientist’s life work must withstand the test of time to be acknowledged, respected and admired for the generations to come. I feel this debate will have much historical significance. The number of people who have their reputations on the line on either side of the fence is phenomenal.

    • No – there is only a phenomenal number of people with no reputations who do not know what they are talking about.

      • Mainly geologists, engineers, and arm chair experts who have never studied climate science.

      • A few (~3%) scientists who have trashed their reputations in their ill-considered quest for short-term publicity.

        • ren says:

          Nov 28, 2016; 4:54 PM ET You may know about “Tornado Alley,” it is a common term associated with the central United States. But did you know there is also a “Blizzard Alley?”
          http://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/weather-news/what-is-blizzard-alley/5225829455001

        • Chu the reality is all of the basic premises AGW theory has been based on have failed to come about therefore it follows the theory at best is flawed.

          I can not help it that what the theory has called for has failed to materialize.

          No tropospheric hot spot. Meaning the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor is not there.

          No AO evolving into a more positive mode. Meaning polar areas would be cold not warm.

          No decrease in OLR meaning there apparently is no accumulation of heat taken place on the earth as a result of this factor.

          • ren says:

            Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover.
            https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/[email protected]@sd_000.png

          • Ball4 says:

            SDP – the hot spot is an artifact only of the GCMs indicating the computer parameters used are flawed, not the basic theory. The AO is primarily a wide area circulation issue, not the basic theory. The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.

            It is Salvatore that is flawed not the basic theory as he writes.

          • ren says:

            Forecaster Todd Crawford said a weak Polar vortex – cold air sinking down from the Arctic regions – will trigger the cold spell.
            He said: Because of the weak stratospheric polar vortex, there is also an increasingly good change of a sudden stratospheric warming sometime within the next four to six weeks that would ramp up the cold risks later in the winter.

            The colder pattern that started in October has persisted into November, this is a fairly clear sign that our original ideas for this winter were a bit off base.

            This year is showing a stark difference to the end of last winter which was unusually mild and stormy.
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/736962/UK-weather-forecast-latest-snow-ice-temperature-met-office

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, November 28, 2016 at 9:21 AM:

            The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.

            The trickster is back.

            Here’s CERES EBAF Ed4 (red, blue) vs. Ed2.8 (black) ToA LW flux, 30N-30S, Jan’03-Dec’14:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png

            Practically no difference.

            Here’s CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA LW flux, global, vs. UAHv6 (b5) gl TLT, Mar’00-Jul’16:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr-vs-tlt.png
            CERES SYN1deg, observed ToA LW flux, global, vs. UAHv6 (b5) gl TLT, Mar’00-Apr’16:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr-vs-tlt1.png

            Absolutely no hint of an overall downward tendency in OLR relative to tropospheric temperatures. (What you see is ENSO noise (short-term cloud and humidity perturbations). Other than that, the OLR simply follows tropospheric temps tightly over time – it is, after all, primarily a direct radiative effect of them.)

            This is distinctly NOT consistent with “basic AGW theory”, but rather quite consistent with a “null hypothesis” of no observable influence.

          • Ball4 says:

            No tricks Kristian, data straight from Loeb 2016 Table 4. For which you haven’t demonstrated the expertise to replicate and therefore show us any flaw. CERES team shows OLR decreases from three different instruments in the latest period examined exactly as I wrote. Read Loeb 2016.

          • Kristian says:

            The trick is not in the data itself, Ball4, as you well know, of course. It’s in your cherry-pick (Jan’03-Dec’14 only, when the full dataset spans from Mar’00-Jul’16; 30N-30S only, when the full globe spans from 90N to 90S), and especially in what you claim based on that cherry-pick, without even bothering to compare the OLR with the TLT for the same period and the same latitude band.

            Your tricks have been exposed so many times now, on this blog and others, that it takes a pretty reasonable set of balls (pun intended), I will admit, to keep showing your ‘face’ as you do on these discussion threads.

            If nothing else, as always, you’re a funny bloke …

          • Ball4 says:

            No cherry picking Kristian, Loeb 2016 uses the latest, longest period available from each instrument using calibratable data. Read the paper.

          • Kristian says:

            Not Loeb’s cherry-picking, Ball4. Your cherry-picking. And your claims based on that cherry-pick alone.

          • Ball4 says:

            I have made no original claims beyond Loeb 2016 at all Kristian. I cherry pick nothing. I simply report the 2016 CERES team paper shows your claims are inaccurate, that you do not have the expertise to replicate their work and find fault or even challenge their confidence intervals. The paper demonstrates LW out has gone down over the longest observed term available to date with reasonably (and documented)calibratable data from 3 different precision instruments.

            Read the paper.

          • Kristian says:

            Exactly. You only look at that paper’s specified latitude band and time period addressed and draw your conclusions based on that alone:
            “The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.”

            THAT’S your cherry-pick, Ball4.

            And it is NOT consistent with “basic (AGW) theory”. It is consistent with the ENSO states during that time, particularly influencing the tropical/subtropical oceans and troposphere of our planet, as discussed here:
            http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf (Loeb et al., 2012)
            and here:
            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822.pdf (Susskind et al., 2012)

            Tropical and global TLT both went down over the period in question. Corresponding directly to the concurrent drop in global and tropical OLR. Both driven by a particular succession of ENSO states.

            When you include the ENTIRE dataset (Mar’00-Jul’16), then there is no overall decrease in OLR, neither in the tropics nor globally. And especially there is no overall decrease in OLR relative to tropospheric temps.

            And that is something that is specifically NOT consistent with “basic AGW theory”.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, November 29, 2016 at 7:47 AM:

            I simply report the 2016 CERES team paper shows your claims are inaccurate, that you do not have the expertise to replicate their work and find fault or even challenge their confidence intervals.

            I’m not challenging their data, Ball4. As I’ve told you before. It’s most likely very close to correct. And I’ve specifically shown you how it matches the CERES EBAF Ed2.8 data that I use myself pretty much to the tee. So no disagreement there at all. Nothing new.

            IOW, what I’m telling you is that the OLR did go down during that period. But so did ENSO, and so, accordingly, did tropospheric temps. And that’s the reason why the OLR went down during your time period of choice. Not some hypothetical strengthening of a “GHE”, as YOU (and only you, it would seem) claim.

          • Ball4 says:

            “THAT’S your cherry-pick, Ball4.”

            Wrong Kristian. It would be a cherry pick if selectively chosen beneficial data was used from all data that is available. This is not the case in Loeb 2016. The CERES team used all the available calibratable data confirmed by 3 different precision instuments. As I have repeatedly written for you. Read their papers.

            “When you include the ENTIRE dataset (Mar’00-Jul’16)..”

            There is no calibratable CERES data before the starting date in Loeb 2016, read their papers. Yet again, the 2016 CERES team used all the available calibratable data confirmed by 3 different precision instuments, no cherry picking. All means all there is no hedging here.

            “And it is NOT consistent with “basic (AGW) theory”.”

            You insert AGW into what I (and Salvatore) wrote. Actually Loeb 2016 finding IS consistent with basic theory as I wrote & Salvatore claimed otherwise. Please provide a cite to support your assertion that Loeb 2016 is not consistent with basic theory; you don’t have the expertise to replicate let alone find any fault.

            “I’m not challenging their data, Ball4. As I’ve told you before. It’s most likely very close to correct…IOW, what I’m telling you is that the OLR did go down during that period.”

            Ok, then Kristian now concedes & reverses from his “Absolutely no hint of an overall downward tendency in OLR” & agrees with Loeb 2016: LW out has gone down in the longest available CERES period examined, confirmed by 3 different instruments (Table 4).

            “Not some hypothetical strengthening of a “GHE”, as YOU (and only you, it would seem) claim.”

            If you computer search this thread, find those are Kristian’s claims alone (1 hit) not mine. This is an old trick Kristian, assigning words you write to others. You set up a sham argument that you can then defeat. There is a term for that.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4,

            1) I have shown you (time and time again) that the particular data version used and presented in Loeb et al., 2016, EBAF Ed4, hardly differs AT ALL from the data that I use, the officially published and publically available version, EBAF Ed2.8, for the period and latitude band in question:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png
            (Red and blue curves: Ed4 (Terra, Aqua – you see there’s a slight difference even between the two, but not of real significance); black curve: Ed2.8 (Terra/Aqua merged).)

            You have never even addressed this point … Ed4 basically equals Ed2.8, Ball4. Look at the plot above. Everyone else reading this exchange of ours will. And will know immediately that you have no case here.

            2) I have shown you (repeatedly) that the officially published and publically available EBAF Ed2.8 OLR data – coinciding very well indeed with the Ed4 OLR data – stretches beyond both the time period and latitude band looked at in the specific paper that YOU have chosen as YOUR sole focus, from Mar’00 to Jul’16 and from 90N to 90S:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr.png

          • Kristian says:

            3) I have gone on to show you (on multiple occasions) how the mean OLR flux at the global ToA closely tracks global mean tropospheric temps (UAHv6 TLT) from 2000 to 2016, barring (short-term) ENSO-related noise (cloud and humidity anomalies):
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr-vs-tlt.png
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/olr-vs-tlt1.png

            (There is also a good fit in the tropics, BTW:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-2000-2016-uahv6.png )

          • Kristian says:

            4) I have also referred you to papers, both by Loeb et al. and by Susskind et al., describing the tight relationship between the progression over time of the OLR anomaly at the ToA, both tropical and global, and the succession of ENSO states during that same time. The same tight relationship can be found between tropospheric temps and the ENSO states (NINO3.4):
            http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120012822.pdf
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/nino3-4-vs-gl-tlt-og-olr.png

            (None of this is “consistent with basic (AGW) theory”, Ball4. It is rather very much consistent with the null hypothesis of no discernible change due to an “enhanced GHE”.)

            What have you got left after this? Nothing. There is nothing you can say that will change these simple correlations. And so all you can do is what you keep on doing: you’re trolling, and that’s it. Pretending there’s some substance to what you’re saying, when in fact there is absolutely none … It’s just hollow, vacuous blather that goes on and on.

          • Ball4 says:

            “There is nothing you can say that will change these simple correlations.”

            That’s correct Kristian, what matters is the expertise of the CERES team. Read their papers. Quote THEIR work.

            They have documented (and I tried unsuccessfully to tell Kristian in a previous thread) the CERES data he uses prior to Loeb 2016 can not be reasonably calibrated to thermometer surface temperatures, I pointed out precisely where the CERES team has explained the reasons for that circumstance, Kristian ignored it. Kristian has not even tried to calibrate his data download. Any…ANY conclusions Kristian draws using uncalibrated data are therefore baseless, especially this Kristian only claim: “None of this is “consistent with basic (AGW) theory”, Ball4″.

            I pointed this out in the previous thread, told Kristian the data he downloaded is uncalibrated, he continued to use it without calibration. This speaks volumes about Kristian’s non-expertise in this field. The CERES team calibrated results are consistent with the basic theory. Kristian does not have the expertise to calibrate the 3 instruments data or replicate CERES team work (including CIs) let alone find any fault with the basic theory. I spent about 30 minutes finding that out, Kristian has spent many hours running us around not addressing (or learning, or advancing) the CERES team science.

            For those interested, Kristian’s conclusions are quite easily found to be baseless simply by spending 30 minutes reading the CERES team papers.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, December 1, 2016 at 8:19 AM:

            (…) what matters is the expertise of the CERES team. Read their papers. Quote THEIR work.

            Why? Why should I quote their work!? It’s YOUR bloody reference! Why don’t YOU quote it? Up to this point you have provided nothing but self-made assertions. Quote their work directly. And by that I don’t mean like you quote me, completely out of context.

            Like 1) the particular quote where they say that the older version Ed2.8 is wrong and useless because it’s not “calibrated”, or 2) where they say that the OLR observed to go down between Jan’03 and Dec’14 is distinctly in line with what “basic AGW theory” predicts.

            You’re nothing but a troll and an incorrigible bluffer, Ball4.

            – – –

            However, I will quote from Loeb et al., 2012, and from Susskind et al., 2012, both of which I referred to.

            Loeb et al., 2012:
            “The first decade of the Terra record was characterized by relatively modest La Nina and El Nino conditions during the first 7 years followed by prolonged strong La Nina conditions between June 2007 and April 2009, and a strong El Nino event immediately after. CERES outgoing LW radiation closely tracks with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). During El Nino conditions outgoing LW flux increases, and decreases during La Nina conditions.”
            (See especially their Figs. 4c) and 5a).)

            READ THE PAPER, Ball4. You will learn a lot from it. For instance, they did in fact calibrate their data at earlier times and in earlier versions also. They didn’t just now figure out that this is something that needs to be done.

            Susskind et al., 2012:
            “CERES and AIRS data records both show that global mean and tropical mean OLR have decreased over the time period under study [Sep’02-Jun’11], and more significantly, that both global and tropical mean OLR anomaly time series are highly positively correlated with El Nino/La Nina variability as expressed by an El Nino Index. The paper then used anomaly time series of surface skin temperature, mid-tropospheric water vapor, and cloud amounts derived from analysis of AIRS sounder data over this time period to explain why global and tropical mean OLR anomaly time series are positively correlated with the El Nino Index, which like global and tropical mean OLR, has decreased on the average over this time period as a result of phases of El Nino/La Nina oscillations.”
            (Relevant figures: 2a) and b).)

            READ THE PAPER, Ball4. Once again, you will learn a lot.

            – – –

            They have documented (and I tried unsuccessfully to tell Kristian in a previous thread) the CERES data he uses prior to Loeb 2016 can not be reasonably calibrated to thermometer surface temperatures, I pointed out precisely where the CERES team has explained the reasons for that circumstance, Kristian ignored it.

            This is getting ridiculous, Ball4. Provide THE DIRECT AND UNMANIPULATED QUOTE (you have proven yourself to be quite the quote-trickster, after all) where they clearly state that Ed2.8 data is “not calibrated” (and therefore somehow isn’t fit for purpose)!

            Also, AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU NOW MORE THAN A DOZEN TIMES, it wouldn’t matter either way, because the older – and, according to you, uncalibrated – Ed2.8 data STILL matches all but perfectly the newer, “calibrated” data in Ed4:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png

            Hence, there is NOTHING in the newer (“calibrated”) data that wasn’t already there in the older (according to YOU, “uncalibrated”) data. There is nothing new that you have somehow discovered, that changes anything of what I have already shown, Ball4. And this is something that you seemingly cannot for the life of you get through your head.

            You have no case. You are simply wrong and acting all childish about it. That’s the story here …

          • Ball4 says:

            Again, see Table 4 in Loeb 2016 that shows Kristian’s claims I quoted are baseless.

            I’ve quoted that table enough Kristian. It is you that has to prove your download is meaningfully and reasonably calibrated not the CERES team which I cited in the previous thread after a simple 30 minutes reading up on their calibration work.

            Kristian’s time is better used advancing their work rather than drawing baseless conclusions that I clipped.

          • Ball4 says:

            To be constructive Kristian, here’s a thought, instead of debating uselessly & endlessly. Use the Loeb 2016 CERES team Table 4 data they developed from calibrations they documented to build your case well founded. You will have to accurately modify whatever temperature series you select to fit their parameters including any 30 year base period for anomaly as required. AFAIK this would be new work if done properly & of course including CIs.

          • Kristian says:

            *Sigh*
            See previous comments. With links/plots. It’s all there. I can no longer be bothered repeating myself …

            You have nothing, Ball4. You provide no direct quotes from the paper you wrongly base your entire argument on. Only hollow assertions. Why? You provide no plots. Why? I’m basically doing your job for you. You refuse to address the plot where I show how ‘my’ – according to you – “uncalibrated” data (Ed2.8) match ‘your’ “calibrated” data (Ed4) more or less to a tee, essentially all by itself rendering your whole argument moot. How come?

            You’re nothing but a clown, Ball4. End of story.

            Bye.

          • Ball4 says:

            matches “more or less”

            Yes, this is correct Kristian, your conclusions beyond Loeb 2016 dates in Table 4 are thus more or less wrong.

            I can easily copy/quote 30 minutes verbatim contextual reading from the pertinent CERES team reports. That would be a long unnecessary unconstructive post since they are readily available on the ‘net (not one is pay walled) – Kristian criticizes short clips and then won’t read/study 30 minutes worth of the paper I found for him on CERES team calibration warnings to data users in the previous thread.

            If Kristian would be kind enough not to jump into a future discussion thread with “more or less” wrong data (by his own admission) like he did here, then I welcome his departure.

  91. Chu my question to you is how do you have blind faith in a theory that has all the basic premises it is based on wrong?

  92. BALL you not spin your way out. The basic premises of the theory are wrong.

    • Ball4 says:

      Salvatore – No spinning. Show your work, cite where your claims originate. The original cites will show:

      The hot spot is an artifact only of the GCMs indicating the computer parameters used are flawed, not the basic theory. The AO is primarily a wide area circulation issue, not the basic theory. The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.

      It is Salvatore that is flawed not the basic theory as he writes.

      • ball – Wrong on all counts the theory is flawed.

      • Maybe when the global temperatures continue down you will seer the light. But then again.

        • Ball4 says:

          The global temperatures may well continue down, Salvatore, while your assertions will still be flawed, unsupported. Apparently you are unable to provide any proper foundation at all for your assertions.

          • I have stated my theory in detail, and you will have to prove why it is not correct if the global temperatures go down while a prolonged solar minimum is taking place.

            I have shown all of the reasons many times.

          • Ball4 says:

            Salvatore – not discussing your “theory” just that your claims written here are so obviously flawed, are so completely wrong & unsupported. You are unable to provide citation for the reader here to find any proper foundation at all for your assertions. Global avg. temperatures may indeed go down, your obviously faulty reasoning will not accurately explain the cause.

    • ren says:

      What will be to the theory of AGW if over 30 years from 2010 polar vortex will be weak and low solar activity?
      Abstract.
      In this work we continue studying possible reasons for the temporal variability of longterm
      effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower
      atmosphere circulation. It was revealed that the detected earlier ~60-year oscillations of the
      amplitude and sign of SA/GCR effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes are
      closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. A roughly 60-
      year periodicity was found in the vortex strength affecting the evolution of the large-scale
      atmospheric circulation and the character of SA/GCR effects. It was shown that the sign reversals
      of the correlations between tropospheric pressure and SA/GCR variations coincide well with the
      transitions between the different states of the vortex. Most pronounced SA/GCR influence on the
      development of extratropical baric systems is observed when the vortex is strong. The results
      obtained suggest that the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex plays an important part in the
      mechanism of solar-atmospheric links.
      http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  93. Steve Milesworthy says:

    Roy: “Maybe because people dont see its effects in their daily lives.”

    Yes, in my daily life I don’t see the mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the melting of the Arctic sea ice and the vast majority of glaciers, the steady acceleration in sea level rise leading to more regular coastal flooding, the greater frequency of extreme weather identified by reinsurance companies,

    Roy said “2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.”

    Only if you look at Roy’s dataset. Everyone else disagrees and says that the climate models are bang on.

    Roy said: “4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.”

    Yes. It is being credited for greening by the same scientists (and models) that show that the greening effect will be outweighed by the warming effect within a few decades.

    • WizGeek says:

      @Milesworthy: Coral bleaching has many factors in addition to water temperature (warmer and colder,) Arctic ice has a volcanic component (Antarctic ice growing,) glacial mass balance mean for all glaciers trending upward since 2003 (mean for reference glciers is downward only because the glacier candidate list is manipulated,) sea level rise rate is highly variable over century periods, but highly stable over millennial periods (localized flooding is, well, localized,) and extreme weather frequency is decreasing–reinsurance companies are at higher risk mainly because a ever increasing density of people and things inhabit risky areas.

      Your “only Roy” and “everyone else” assertion is specious.

      Your “few decades” warning has been asserted for the past “few decades.” When will this sophomoric obfuscation end?

      Thanks for playing, though.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      Climate change happens. Temperatures and sea levels have been rising for the past 13,000 years and we contributed nothing measurable to that (highly desirable) warming.

      If humankind could significantly influence climate we should want more CO2 and much higher temperatures.

  94. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi Steve Milesworthy.
    you wrote:
    “Roy said 2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.

    Only if you look at Roys dataset. Everyone else disagrees and says that the climate models are bang on.”
    Do you really believe it?
    Much better you take a look here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/

    I’m not a scientist, just an engineer, but those uncertainties bars superimposed to your reliable GCM make me laugh.

    BTW those uncertainties just take account of 1% clouds coverage change.

    Have a great day.

    Massimo

  95. BALL I have explained my thoughts in detail if you do not accept it fine.

    My website has it all climatebusters.org

    • Ball4 says:

      Salvatore – it is your claims made here that are unsupported and wrong. Your “theory” elsewhere can not make them correct. Self citing is not support.

      • ren says:

        The Earth’s system includes not only the atmosphere but also the land (including ice cover) and ocean. Most of the excess heat in the Earth’s system does not accumulate in the atmosphere. Heat energy is absorbed by the land surface as well as used in state changes in the Earth’s water cycle (melting/forming ice, evaporation/precipitation), but it is the liquid ocean that absorbs the vast majority (>90%) of excess heat in the Earth’s system. Not only does the ocean have a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, allowing it to hold more heat energy within the same volume, but the motion of the ocean, the constant horizontal and vertical advection and mixing, removes water from direct contact with the atmosphere, sequestering heat at depths far from surface interaction and direct influence on GMST. Arguably, the most appropriate single variable in the Earth’s system that can be used to monitor global warming is ocean heat content (OHC), integrated from the surface to the bottom of the ocean [von Schuckmann et al., 2016].
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000417/full
        Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. Monthly Mean.
        http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swar19_prd.gif

      • That is only your opinion.

        I say the same for AGW theory.

        • Ball4 says:

          It is not any kind of opinion that proves you are wrong Salvatore, the proof rests on the basic science from numerous replicated tests, atm. observations and long held basic thermo. and radiation laws (1LOT, 2LOT, Planck etc.).

          Again, you are wrong not by opinion but citable science you can easily find in context on your own, which you should have already done to be accurately writing about these subjects:

          The hot spot is an artifact only of the GCMs indicating the computer parameters used are flawed, not the basic theory. The AO is primarily a wide area circulation issue, not the basic theory. The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.

          • Ball4 says:

            Salvatore – time will NOT correct your errors. You will have to do that.

          • ren says:

            MESOSPHERIC BORE (IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK): This month, a lot is happening in the mesosphere. The mesosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere above the stratosphere; it is the realm of sprites, noctilucent clouds (NLCs), and airglow. Starting on Nov. 17th, NASA’s AIM spacecraft spotted bright noctilucent clouds forming in the mesosphere above Antarctica. Then, in an apparently unrelated development on Nov. 24th, the normal dome of airglow over China split in two. Xiao Shuai photographed the event from Mount Balang in Sichuan:
            http://0e33611cb8e6da737d5c-e13b5a910e105e07f9070866adaae10b.r15.cf1.rackcdn.com/Jeff-Dai-Airglow-bore-over-China1_1480304379_lg.jpg
            This is called a “mesospheric bore”–and not because it’s dull. A bore is a type of atmospheric wave with deep ripples at its leading edge. Indeed, you can see the ripples in Shuai’s photo separating the zone of airglow from clear sky.
            Bores fall into the category of “gravity waves”—so called because gravity acts as the restoring force essential to wave motion. Analogy: Boats in water. When a boat goes tearing across a lake, water in front of the boat is pushed upward. Gravity pulls the water back down again and this sets up a wave.
            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2016.png
            The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to about 53 miles (85 km) above the earth. The gases, including the oxygen molecules, continue to become thinner and thinner with height. As such, the effect of the warming by ultraviolet radiation also becomes less and less leading to a decrease in temperature with height. On average, temperature decreases from about 5°F (-15°C) to as low as -184°F (-120°C) at the mesopause. However, the gases in the mesosphere are thick enough to slow down meteorites hurtling into the atmosphere, where they burn up, leaving fiery trails in the night sky.

          • BALL– We will see which way the global temperature trend goes going forward.

          • Ball4 says:

            Salvatore – It seems you do not understand: if global temperatures do go down, your errors written here will not be somehow corrected. You will still be wrong. Only you can improve your writings, the weather will have no effect on them, no matter the weather.

  96. gallopingcamel says:

    Thank you (Roy Spencer) for continuing to allow comments on this fine blog. You were getting a great deal of abuse but I am confident that things are going to get much better for you in the near future.

    People like you and John Cristy who remain true to scientific integrity will be rewarded. Even if you are not rewarded financially you will enjoy the respect of the public.

  97. BALL this is for you. If global temperatures go down and is shown to be due to the principals I have discussed below you will have to explain and prove why it is wrong.

    First I want to state my bottom line is each of my solar parameters if reached should effect the amount of radiation reaching the earths surface and or change the albedo, modified by the geo magnetic field of the earth.

    Remember only a very small change in albedo is needed to have major climatic impacts.

    SOLAR PARAMETERS VERSUS CLIMATIC IMPACT.

    SOLAR IRRADIANCE at times of prolonged solar minimums this value declines maybe as much as .2 to .4 % in extreme cases such as the Maunder Minimum . Even a .1 % drop would equate to a global temperature drop of .1c to 2c, due to less overall solar radiation reaching the earths surface..

    UV light the light just below the visible light wavelength does penetrate the ocean surface to considerable depths which would suggest if there is a decline in UV light that the amounts of energy penetrating the oceans would subside which should result in oceanic cooling. In addition greater sea ice extent would come about resulting in an increase in albedo.

    EUV light these wavelengths being very short which have been shown to effect not only the amounts of ozone which are created in the atmosphere but the distribution as well. This in turn has been shown to effect the atmospheric circulation by a weakening of the polar vortex which in turn effect both cloud coverage and snow coverage.
    A greater meridional atmospheric circulation resulting from the above causing both global cloud coverage / snow coverage to increase which if indeed is the case would increase the albedo of the earth.

    Note , once the cooling becomes established I believe the atmospheric circulation several years forward evolves to a zonal flow.

    SOLAR WIND when this becomes very low galactic cosmic rays increase and there are studies that suggest this will enable global cloud coverage to increase and if true would again cause the albedo of the earth to increase. There are also studies that suggest an increase in galactic cosmic rays combined with a very low AP index seems to correlate with an increase in major volcanic activity . If true this would cause less solar radiation to reach the surface of the earth and in turn cause periods of rapid cooling.

    AP INDEX a measure of geo magnetic activity if very low months on end if interrupted with a sudden spike studies have shown this could trigger an increase in geological activity(volcanic) which again would cause cooling. The strength of the geo magnetic field in general being a factor in that the weaker that field is the greater will be the impacts of given solar events.

    SOLAR FLUX which measures the energy being emitted from sun if below 90 has a climatic cooling effect which is in evidenced during past prolonged solar minimum periods when this value was sub 90 and general global cooling took place.

    To sum it up I came up with solar parameters which are at or just below typical solar lulls in the 11 year sunspot cycle and reasoned if they persist as is the case with a prolonged solar minimum periods of time would cause the earth to cool because this is what the historical climatic record indicates.

    The geo magnetic field being a relevant player in present times because it is in sync with the weakening solar magnetic field which should cause given solar effects to be magnified to some degree.

    I gave the reasons as to why my solar parameters would effect the climate. You may not agree with what I have suggested but that does not take away from the fact that I gave the reasons and in addition I have come up with specific solar parameter values which I think are needed to accomplish this , along with a duration of time.

    • Ball4 says:

      It is Salvatore that is in denial by changing the subject and not being able to support his original 7:26am claims:

      “it follows the theory at best is flawed.

      No tropospheric hot spot. Meaning the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor is not there.
      No AO evolving into a more positive mode. Meaning polar areas would be cold not warm.
      No decrease in OLR meaning there apparently is no accumulation of heat taken place on the earth as a result of this factor.”

      When the easily researched science facts (say spend 15-30 minutes finding original work) are opposite to these claims:

      The hot spot is an artifact only of the GCMs indicating the computer parameters used are flawed, not the basic theory. The AO is primarily a wide area circulation issue, not the basic theory. The 2016 CERES team data finds OLR decreasing in the latest 13 year period examined consistent with basic theory.

      Salvatore’s claims will not be made correct no matter the future global temperatures.

      • Ball4 says:

        Salvatore, researching original work on global temperature changes and the various series is a huge time sink, so I do not comment on the subject. However in about a minute I find from original work your comment:

        “I have come up with specific solar parameter values which I think are needed to accomplish this…Even a .1 % drop would equate to a global temperature drop of .1c to .2c, ”

        Dr. Spencer & UAH shows this 0.1% drop ocurred in 2016. All Salvatore has to do to be right about global temperatures is show “SOLAR IRRADIANCE declined maybe as much as .2 to .4 %” at the same time. I also note NO time periods, NO numerical parameters in any of the following paragraphs. Salvatore can claim anything he wants in the future, at any time. Perhaps Salvatore does need to be more specific.

        Even so that will not change the fact Salvatore is wrong about the basic science being flawed.

        • BAL 4 – If the sun attains my parameters and cooling comes about due to increased cloud coverage, snow coverage, volcanic activity ,reduced sea surface temperatures I would say my case for being correct would be quite strong.

          At the same time if the cooling proceeds AGW will be proven to be incorrect.

          Because AGW theory says as CO2 increases so do the temperatures.

          So it looks pretty clear cut here it is going to be one way or the other.

          You have low solar versus increasing co2.

        • I am saying the general trend in global temperatures if I am correct will be for several years not just in a given year.

          • Ball4 says:

            No mention of SOLAR IRRADIANCE so Salvatore uses dodgy science once again, no numbers.

            Salvatore writes “at times of prolonged solar minimums” so since a prolonged solar minimum occurred this year when UAH global temperatures declined 0.1C then Salvatore can claim to be right.

            How prolonged? How minimum?

            “..if the cooling proceeds AGW will be proven to be incorrect.”

            Not at all. In any way. Global cooling proceeds in UAH series in 2016, does not show “AGW will be proven to be incorrect.” Even if future global temperatures proceed exactly as the Maunder Minimum, the basic theory will still be correct as the basic theory was also correct from about 1645 and continuing to about 1715.

            From casual reading in the past, I’ll point out SOLAR IRRADIANCE reconstructions went up from about 1645 and continuing to about 1715, Salvatore does not discuss this with numbers or provide cites.

  98. Under “Bevan Dockery says: November 18, 2016 at 3:35 AM” it was shown that CO2 has not caused warming in the vicinity of the Mauna Loa Observatory but that the Tropics temperature has possibly determined the rate of change of CO2 concentration. To this can now be added the results of a similar statistical analysis of CO2 data from Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean, Latitude 54.48 South, Longitude 158.97 East, over the period February 1991 to December 2015.

    Applying a First Order Autoregression Model to the seasonally corrected monthly CO2 time series relative to the UAH satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Southern Extension zone, which contains Macquarie Island, gave a correlation coefficient :-
    for the whole zone, -0.057 with t statistic -0.98, 296 degrees of freedom, probability of zero correlation of 33%,
    for the Land component, -0.023, t statistic -0.39, 296 d. of f., probability of zero 70%,
    for the Ocean component, -0.066, t statistic -1.14, 296 d. of f., probability of zero 26%.
    That is, if a causal relationship existed then increased CO2 would produce a decrease in temperature. However the probabilities are insufficient to conclude anything other than there being no causal relationship, in agreement with the conclusion from the Mauna Loa data.

    Applying a First Order Autoregression Model to the temperature from the various zones, Global, Tropics, Southern Hemisphere and Southern Extension, relative to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration at Macquarie Island gave a maximum coefficient from the Tropics zone of 0.55 with t statistic 10.97, 284 d. of f., probability of zero negligible.

    This supports the earlier contention that the temperature sets the rate of change of CO2 concentration and, as the Equatorial zone has the greatest average temperature, it is the zone generating the major portion of the Earth’s atmospheric CO2.

  99. http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

    In the meantime here is the score card on AGW theory , not very good.

    • Ball4 says:

      The site writes “Model prediction” not basic theory Salvatore. It is obvious the models run hot, can not even hind cast as they are parameterized not basic theory.

      • ball So you think the theory is correct but the models are wrong.

        Fair enough so if the theory is correct do you agree that going forward the overall global temperature trend will have to be going up?

        If the temperatures should decline say back to 1970’s levels going forward would you say the theory at that point is wrong?

        • Ball4 says:

          “Fair enough so if the theory is correct do you agree that going forward the overall global temperature trend will have to be going up?”

          Predict UP for all 9+ independent A emitted compound atmospheric drivers effect on global Tmedian within meaningful CIs? And the land use changes effect on albedo along with natural solar irradiance changes? No.

          “If the temperatures should decline say back to 1970’s levels going forward would you say the theory at that point is wrong?”

          No, the basic theory was right in the 1970s also. That is why they call them principles, laws.

  100. BALL – I also said if my solar parameters are reached and the global temperatures do not decline or even stay steady that I would be wrong.

    What would it take to make you say AGW theory is wrong? What would you have to see take place from that end to say it is wrong?

    I am curious.

    • Ball4 says:

      Demonstrate your solar parameters were reached in UAH 2016. Your global temperatures decline was reached.

      “What would it take to make you say AGW theory is wrong?”

      A single proper replicable test meaningful within CIs.

      • So far for 2016 some of my solar parameters are just starting to be reached, so it is to early to know.

        Again if the global temperatures should start start to show an overall persistent down trend( which I think s happening now) you Mr. Ball will have to start to evaluate why this is.

        I think you could agree on that.

        • Ball4 says:

          Your global temperature decline WAS hit in 2016 Salvatore. I’ll venture to write your SOLAR IRRADIANCE decline target (.2 to .4 %) was NOT hit so you are already proven wrong. Prove your SOLAR IRRADIANCE target was hit.

      • ball- it is to EARLY to know.

        You guys do not understand I said 6 months following all of my low average value solar parameters being met the decline in global temperatures from that source should take hold in a re meaningful way.

        These low avg. value solar parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general which we have had.

        I would say thus far most of the global temperature decline since he summer been due to the ending of El Nino.

        • Ball4 says:

          “You guys do not understand I said 6 months following” of course not that is the 1st hit on this page of the string 6 months.

          You will never be wrong Salvatore, you just need to write another rule making you right in hind cast. This is called curve fitting. No predictive value in your strategy. At all.

          • LAST TIME BALL

            I said I will be wrong if the global temperatures stay the same or rise if the sun meets my criteria.

            It seems quite clear since I have listed the solar criteria and one can see what kind of a temperature reaction the globe gets when that solar criteria is met.

            It seems clear cut to me.

          • Ball4 says:

            You didn’t say that in this thread, Salvatore. Only one hit on string: I will be wrong

            While predicting UP or DOWN might be clear to Salvatore, it is not clear to science. There are too many variables that have both UP and DOWN effects on global Tmedian. Salvatore is tilting at windmills.

  101. ball -Explain how OLR could be increasing contrary to AGW theory?

    I know what you will say, the study is flawed

    • Ball4 says:

      I will simply refer Salvatore to use original work. The CERES team publications that caution users at length on the calibration to surface thermometer temperatures of their downloadable data to which I (somewhat patiently) referred Kristian, the papers need be read, this guy “Hammer” does not discuss them. At all.

      As in the caution above, “some guy on the internet” is not a proper science source. Merely replicating his work to understand will be a huge time sink. Use original sources. Less time sink.

      You can start with googling the CERES PI Loeb website for a pub. list plus there are plenty of free ref.s on the CERES website. I recommend start with Loeb 2016 Table 4 and pertinent ref.s listed at the end. I started from scratch, spent about 30 minutes on a previous thread doing so with Kristian, it is not a huge time sink to form a science based view with meaningful CIs. One does need to have accomplished certain pre-req.s to read them (like knowing what a confidence interval (CI) means). A certain amount of accomplishment is assumed in the original work.

      • BALL – that aside what cause you to decide AGW is wrong?

      • ball – I knew you would say the study was flawed one way or the other.

        • Ball4 says:

          Did not say the study was flawed Salvatore, I haven’t spent the time.

          The large time sink to replicate Hammer’s work looking for any flaw is of no interest as he doesn’t discuss the cautions placed on all users of downloads by the CERES Team (Kristian likewise does not calculate CIs). If Hammer discussed those cautions in entirety, had CIs meaningfully published extending Loeb’s Table 4, then would be more interesting. You haven’t done the work either, your view formed from “some guy on the internet” is not science based. No value.

      • Kristian says:

        Ball4 says, December 2, 2016 at 9:31 AM:

        The CERES team publications that caution users at length on the calibration to surface thermometer temperatures of their downloadable data to which I (somewhat patiently) referred Kristian, the papers need be read (…)

        This is, as always coming from you, Ball4, just a load of BS.

        I have read Loeb et al., 2016. It appears you haven’t. There is NOTHING there saying ANYTHING about CERES ToA OLR data, as presented through their EBAF Ed2.8 product, still the officially published and publically available dataset of the “CERES team”, being somehow uncalibrated against “surface thermometer temperatures” and therefore unusable in climate studies.

        QUOTE THEM DIRECTLY, Ball4!

        In fact, Loeb et al., 2016, specifically refer the reader to the two papers I linked to above, saying:
        “3.4. Comparison with AIRS
        Recent studies have demonstrated the utility of comparing the stability of LW observations from the AIRS and CERES. Huang et al. compared daytime and nighttime CERES FM3 LW radiances with coincident spectral radiances observed by AIRS. Loeb et al. and Susskind et al. compared the AIRS Version-5 monthly Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) data product with CERES Terra and Aqua LW TOA fluxes. Here we compare AIRS Version-6 monthly OLR and CERES Edition 4 Terra and Aqua LW fluxes for 30S-30N between January 2003 and December 2014 (Figure 7). All three data products show a consistent decrease in LW TOA flux (Figure 7a). The trends (Table 4), which are mainly associated with ENSO variability, agree to 0.16 W/m^2 per decade. All three datasets also show a slight decline of 0.20.3 W/m^2 per decade in the daytime minus nighttime LW difference that is statistically significant at the 95% significance level (Figure 7b; Table 4). Regionally, the most pronounced decreases in daytime-nighttime LW TOA flux difference occur over the west and central Pacific Ocean and over the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar (not shown). That all three instruments detect such a small signal so consistently is noteworthy. The results suggest that there is a small diurnal component to the LW TOA flux response to ENSO variations.”
        (My emphasis.)

        What, then, did Susskind et al., 2012, with Loeb as a co-author, find when comparing CERES EBAF Ed2.6 with AIRS v5?
        “Summary
        The first part of this paper compared September 2002 through June 2011 anomaly time series of OLR and OLR_CLR data records, determined from CERES observations as generated by the CERES Science Team, and from AIRS observations as generated by the AIRS Science Team. Excellent agreement was found between the CERES and AIRS OLR anomaly time series down to the 1 degree latitude by 1 degree longitude spatial scale. CERES and AIRS data records both show that global mean and tropical mean OLR have decreased over the time period under study, and more significantly, that both global and tropical mean OLR anomaly time series are highly positively correlated with El Nino/La Nina variability as expressed by an El Nino Index.
        The paper then used anomaly time series of surface skin temperature, mid-tropospheric water vapor, and cloud amounts derived from analysis of AIRS sounder data over this time period to explain why global and tropical mean OLR anomaly time series are positively correlated with the El Nino Index, which like global and tropical mean OLR, has decreased on the average over this time period as a result of phases of El Nino/La Nina oscillations.
        (My emphasis.)

        Do you think Joel Susskind of the AIRS Science Team (NASA) and Norman Loeb of the CERES Science Team (NASA) communicate, Ball4? Do you think they read each other’s publications? Do you think they’re aware of each other’s data, how they work to generate it and how they themselves evaluate it?

        Do you think that, if the latter, in his paper finally published in February 2016, found (and clearly stated) that the CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA dataset is in fact an outdated, obsolete and incorrect one, presenting “uncalibrated” data to the public unsuitable for climate studies, then the former would still go on to publish – in March 2016 – this document?
        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160004054.pdf

        to write the following?
        “OLR is a critical component in assessing the Earth’s radiation balance. CERES EBAF Edition-2.8 is considered the gold standard of OLR. CERES directly measures outgoing flux. The CERES Edition-2.8 products represent what OLR would have been if measured and averaged over a whole day. (…) AIRS Version-6 OLR is a computed product using an OLR RTA in conjunction with AIRS retrieved products.”
        (My emphasis.)

        and?
        “The AIRS Version-6 global mean OLR time series agrees extremely well with CERES Edition-2.8 both in terms of absolute value and anomaly time series. AIRS OLR is higher than CERES by roughly 3.5 W/m^2. This bias, which is nearly constant in space and time, is within the uncertainty of the CERES OLR measurement. Both AIRS and CERES OLR time series show that there has been an essentially zero trend in OLR over the 13 year period Sept. 2002 – Oct. 2015. This tends to validate trends of all our parameters.”
        (Figures and Table, pp.9-10)

        Note that the AIRS Version-6 used here is the very same OLR product used in Loeb et al., 2016.

        Note also that Susskind et al. look at GLOBAL OLR over a longer period of time than what Loeb et al., 2016, do.

        Conclusion: CERES EBAF ToA OLR data is essentially unchanged from Ed2.8 to Ed4. Any tiny differences are insignificant at best …

        And Ball4 still has no case. He’s a clown … at best.

        • Ball4 says:

          Kristian’s back! With some questions. Some answers:

          1) What, then, did Susskind et al., 2012,..find?

          Dunno, haven’t taken any time to study their paper. Never said I did. Your verbatim clip shows.

          2) Do you think they communicate? Do they read? Are aware?
          Yes. To all 3.

          3) Do you think that, if the latter, in his paper finally published in February 2016, found (and clearly stated) that the CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA dataset is in fact an outdated, obsolete and incorrect one, presenting “uncalibrated” data to the public unsuitable for climate studies, then the former would still go on to publish – in March 2016 – this document?

          No, because they caution that not all of the data is uncalibratable, only some of the early data is (they explain why in the ref.s), so they used 13 years of the reasonably calibratable data to draw the conclusion OLR has gone down reasonably meaningfully within CIs, see Table 4. They have cautioned users about this situation. We discussed that on the earlier thread, Kristian still ignored their cautions in this thread.

          The problem here, Kristian, is you use the earlier data that they do not use (only self cite for support) and you do not publish CIs.

          There is no way for the reader here to determine if your opposite to Loeb 2016 conclusions are meaningful. I point out after you jumped in that it is Kristian that is wrong, not Loeb 2016.

          Kristian jumped in started off here commenting Loeb 2016 got the basic theory wrong (“This is distinctly NOT consistent with “basic AGW theory”), got the direction of OLR wrong (“Absolutely no hint of an overall downward tendency in OLR”), was cherry picked (“cherry-pick (Jan’03-Dec’14 only, when the full dataset spans from Mar’00-Jul’16”). For supporting info. Kristian self cites instead of citing CERES team pub.s.

          Kristian claims I did not read Loeb 2016. That’s false, I did. I also looked up the pertinent references in it where I found the cautions to users, with some clues from the CERES website. I did that all in about 30 minutes (earlier thread).

          Kristian has taken hours (& hours geez, better spent digging into, understanding CERES stuff) disagreeing with CERES team decisions when all I do is look up CERES team pub.s; I have nothing original. Kristian is just fighting CERES. Why don’t you call & email them, fight them directly.

          Better yet, publish a paper detailing Kristian’s claims about Loeb 2016 cherry picking, wrong basic theory, getting the direction of OLR wrong. Challenge them in print!

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says:

            Kristian has taken hours (& hours geez, better spent digging into, understanding CERES stuff) disagreeing with CERES team decisions when all I do is look up CERES team pub.s; I have nothing original. Kristian is just fighting CERES. Why dont you call & email them, fight them directly.

            Dum-dee-dum …

            I do understand “CERES stuff”, Ball4. You evidently don’t. I understand that there’s practically no difference in the OLR data between CERES EBAF Ed2.8 and Ed4. You refuse to even address this point.

            And I don’t disagree with the “CERES team”. As I’ve told you all along. So you know this perfectly well. I disagree with you. As does the “CERES team”. Because you conclude things about the “enhanced GHE” based on their data that they themselves specifically do not.

            Why don’t you email Norman Loeb and ask him whether CERES EBAF Ed2.8 is a “calibrated” dataset or not and whether it’s usable in climate studies and in validating other relevant datasets like AIRS or not?

          • Ball4 says:

            There is no disagreement between me and the CERES Team at all Kristian, what I write is only FROM the CERES team I have nothing original. Except of course for any typo. It is Kristian trying to convince us that Loeb 2016 is wrong not me. I have no need to contact CERES team, I can read their lengthy publications.

            “I have read Loeb et al., 2016. It appears you haven’t. There is NOTHING there saying ANYTHING about CERES ToA OLR data.”

            Actually this is not true, Kristian is demonstrated as the BS expert. SOMETHING is there saying A LOT about CERES ToA OLR data calibration.

            Kristian simply needs to have his hand held reading thru Loeb 2016, my level of accomplishment took 30 minutes to find issues with Kristian’s conclusions, Kristian’s level is taking hours & not finished, as he asked above (“Quote their work directly, Provide THE DIRECT AND UNMANIPULATED QUOTE”) since he could not, and still cannot, read Loeb 2016 and the ref.s for the calibration issues in the data Kristian uses pre-Jan. 2003 in Loeb Table 4.

            Ok, Kristian’s interest continues, I took a few minutes during cocktail hour, and replicated my earlier work. The key clue I earlier used is the CERES website document on Data Quality Summary 3/19/2014. This points to Loeb 2012. That is Loeb 2016 ref. 9 pointed to under “3.1. In-Flight Calibration Changes”. That document (Kristian missed) is found free on the internet:

            “At night, Terra LW TOA fluxes exceed Aqua fluxes by ~1 Wm-2 for both ocean and all surface types”. This is important with Table 4 CIs of +/- 0.1 to 0.44 and OLR trends -.19 to -.89 W/m^2 per Decade.

            The Data Quality Document shows (Table 5-1) the calibration of Terra data only (Pre-July 2002) for global energy imbalance was from Hansen 2005. When Aqua became available after July 2002 for Ed. 2.8 Argo 2006-10 thermometer data was used for calibration on both Terra/Aqua combined & reduced the CI spread in Table 4 (actually 11 years, my 13 years was from Fig. 6).

            As Kristian uses 2.8 data pre-July 2002, only Terra data is available, only Hansen 2005, and thus must do his own CI to find if his conclusions on OLR are meaningful due the worse Terra only calibration existing in Ed. 2.8 predating Table 4 in Loeb 2016 as CERES team cautions. Kristian does not have the expertise (or at least has not shown it) to do so. Thus Kristian’s conclusions telling us Loeb 2016 is wrong are not shown meaningful, are unsupported, at least to date.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4,

            This is getting tedious.

            Your original claim was that OLR went down from Jan’03 to Dec’14, and so this is somehow consistent with “basic (AGW) theory”.

            Immediately I agreed to the first of these two claims. The data after all shows it to be the case. And I went on to show you how ‘my’ ToA OLR data (CERES EBAF Ed2.8) corresponded perfectly to ‘your’ ToA OLR data (CERES EBAF Ed4, Loeb et al., 2016) in this regard. Both editions show the same. Exactly the same. No disagreement.

            However, I specifically disagreed with your second claim, because it’s yours and yours alone (never made by Loeb et al.), and it’s wrong.

            It’s wrong simply because 1) “basic (AGW) theory” doesn’t just say that OLR should go down, and 2) the OLR evidently went down over that period for specific physical reasons OTHER THAN an “enhanced GHE”.

            1) “Basic (AGW) theory” says that the OLR should go down over time RELATIVE TO tropospheric temps. This is supposed to come as a result of the incremental “raising of the ERL (effective radiating level)” of the Earth as the “GHE” is slowly and gradually “enhanced”. Basically, the OLR should be observed to stay the same over time, while tropospheric temps should be observed to rise relatively steadily over time.

            We don’t see this AT ALL. OLR rather follows tightly tropospheric temps over time.

            2) Both Loeb et al., 2012, and Susskind et al., 2012, very clearly point out, and investigate the physical reasons behind it, that the evolution in ToA OLR over a certain period of time very much follows the succession of ENSO states during that same time. (They don’t even MENTION an “enhanced GHE” as somehow contributing.) Moreover, it is clear from the data (UAHv6 & OIv2 SSTa) that tropospheric temps do the same.

            IOW, ToA OLR went down over the period in question because tropospheric temps went down over the period in question, because NINO3.4 (tracking the ENSO states) went down over the period in question.

            However, OLR did NOT go systematically and gradually down RELATIVE TO the tropospheric temps over the period in question. And so, this particular decrease in ToA OLR is NOT consistent with “basic AGW theory”. It is consistent with a null hypothesis of “no discernible enhanced GHE”.

            THIS is why you are wrong, Ball4.
            YOU are wrong. Only you. NOT Loeb et al.
            This is not about me vs. you and Loeb et al., Ball4. It’s about you vs. me and Loeb et al.

            And each time you post a comment here NOT including a direct quote from Loeb et al., 2016, supporting you SECOND claim above, you only make it clearer to everyone that you in fact have nothing, that you’re only being a troll here.

            I have read and quoted Loeb (2012, 2016) and Susskind (2012, 2016) and I have posted plots of official and easily available data to support my claims. And I have done it repeatedly.

            YOU have done no such thing. Not once. Even after having been asked to do so on several occasions.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Immediately I agreed to the first of these two claims.”

            Kristian, Dr. Spencer’s accomplished pretzel twister, really is playing the trickster well here, no, Kristian immediately disagreed when he jumped into thread as I already pointed out. The internet always remembers: “Absolutely no hint of an overall downward tendency in OLR”. The basis of that statement was Kristian’s errant self cite disagreeing with Loeb 2016 not me.

            Kristian has been backpedaling ever since on that, changing to agreement with Loeb 2016 once it was pointed out since the longest reasonably calibratable data does show OLR decline to be the case within CI.

            “I specifically disagreed with your second claim this is somehow consistent with “basic (AGW) theory”.”

            The thread shows I did not make that claim, that is Kristian’s claim alone. Another repeated Kristian trick, watch the pea, as I already pointed out 1:52pm, the internet remembers, Kristian inserts AGW into what I (and Salvatore) wrote. Actually Loeb 2016 finding IS consistent with basic theory as I did write & Salvatore claimed otherwise. This is an old trick Kristian, assigning words you write to others. You set up a sham argument that you can then defeat. There is a term for that.

            “OLR rather follows tightly tropospheric temps over time.”

            Kristian has not proven this statement meaningful within CI, get busy on your CIs Kristian. Write a paper proving your statement is meaningful.

            “this particular decrease in ToA OLR is NOT consistent with “basic AGW theory”.THIS is why you are wrong, Ball4.”

            No. I simply did not write that. Kristian is circling back, repeatedly. Again, this is simply an old trick Kristian employs, assigning words he alone writes to others. Kristian sets up a sham argument that he then defeats (rather poorly, I might add). There is a term for that.

            What’s more, without CIs Kristian has written nothing meaningful at all about the statement HE wrote. If so, write up a paper Kristian, show some real expertise. Won’t happen because actually Kristian has no real expertise, has written nothing…NOTHING meaningful to advance this field.

  102. ball says below. Well the same thing can be applied to AGW theory. It works both ways.

    December 2, 2016 at 11:29 AM

    You didnt say that in this thread, Salvatore. Only one hit on string: I will be wrong

    While predicting UP or DOWN might be clear to Salvatore, it is not clear to science. There are too many variables that have both UP and DOWN effects on global Tmedian. Salvatore is tilting at windmills.

  103. ball – your attitude is AGW is correct end of story.

    In addition I out lined in detail the reasons why global cooling would occur if solar induced in an earlier post.

    If you do not accept it fine I really do not care.

    • Ball4 says:

      Global cooling to Salvatore’s specification in this thread has already occurred in 2016 without solar irradiation induced change to Salvatore’s specification. That alone causes Salvatore to be wrong.

  104. ball – No I said El Nino related look at my post at 10:28 am today.

    • Ball4 says:

      See Salvatore, you will always be right in the future by looking at the past.

      If in say year 2030 there is an obvious drop in UAH global Tmedian of .1 % because of a well known change in aerosols and precursors without .2 to .4 % solar irradiance drop then you will just need write a comment at 10:28am in Dec.:

      “I would say thus far most of the global temperature decline since the summer been due to the change in aerosols and precursors.”

      Followed by:

      “I said aerosols and precursors related look at my post at 10:28 am today.”

      This is a game Salvatore can not lose. No matter what outcome.

  105. Sailingfree says:

    Clarification of the Cornbelt plot please?
    Are the 42 cmips models for the cornbelt or for the globe?
    Is that a count of 42 out of 102, if so, which ones?
    Thanks

  106. Matt Maddox says:

    I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I was wondering if Dr. Spencer could share any links to the 5 points he makes in the article as to why people aren’t terribly concerned about Global Warming/Climate Change. I’m discussing this subject with some friends who will want to validate the claims made.
    Thanks!

    • Sailingfree says:

      People are less concerned about climate change because of the success of denier propaganda. The professionals in the field are concerned.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        sailingfree ….”People are less concerned about climate change because of the success of denier propaganda”.

        You have that backwards. People were more concerned due to alarmist propaganda and are now beginning to see the truth due to skeptic facts.

  107. bob paglee says:

    The current issue of the Economist (from London)states that it may require more electric power to operate the electric furnaces (power produced from conventional sources such as oil,gas, coal, etc.) needed to make the materials for solar panels than the panels will produce over their estimated 30-year lifetime. Imagine — this gem of info coming from London!