Fan Mail

February 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Once in a while I share “fan mail” I get in response to my blog, and I thought the following example was unusually interesting.

I won’t bother to rebut the mix of misrepresentations, misinformation, etc. This is more for entertainment value.

WARNING: The language in the following is, shall we say, colorful. Don’t read any further if you are easily offended.

YOU’VE BEEN WARNED.

Like every other idiot who thinks 7.4 billion human beings cannot alter our planet, you fail to ask yourself the most important question you should be asking: what if you’re wrong.

If you are wrong, and mankind is desequestering carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen in the form of fossil fuels, then you are advocating the destruction of humanity through the reversal of natural climate engineering.

If you’re wrong and we continue to use fossil fuels, the species and all other mammals will be forever wiped out.

And you are so fucking arrogant, and so fucking lazy, as to not bother asking that simple question.

Why? Because it would be too much work for you to live without your fucking car.

Fuck you.

Go do your fucking homework asshole. Your “science” can’t explain the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, nor the melting Arctic ice cap, nor even why the ice ages occurred only in the northern hemisphere. You don’t understand a damn thing about weather or climate, or even basic atmospheric chemistry. All you know is your fucking ego.

Well, asshole, I’m not impressed by your ignorance, your stupidity, nor your arrogance.

How about this, asshole, tell me how much WATER has been brought up from fossil fuels, how much carbon, how much nitrogen, how much oxygen, and what percentage they increased their corresponding partial pressures in the atmosphere.

Then tell me what the climate was like when the atmospheric carbon was as high as it is now, and whether or not mammals existed.

By the way, asshole, The Oroville Dam is NOT a simple earthen dam, it is a SYSTEM, and that SYSTEM, including the concrete reinforced auxiliary spillway, has failed, because the system was designed to control the flow of water, and right now, there is no such control, and there are processes in place which are destroying the FOUNDATION of the auxiliary spillway and significantly reducing the capacity of the lake to hold water, and which is now presently flowing quite quickly down the mountain.

I hope someone believed you, loses their home, and sues your ass, and takes your bullshit global warming denial into court to demonstrate just how harmful your bullshit is.

You’ve probably killed people downstream, which is no surprise coming from a man who advocates the self-destruction of the human species.

Trust me, the species would do a lot better without ignorant, arrogant assholes like you.


790 Responses to “Fan Mail”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Tom Waeghe says:

    Wow, Roy! This weather makes me want to defriend you on Facebook . Just kidding! It’s unbelievable how diametrically opposite some peoples perspectives are compared to others. Our jobs as citizens are to look at all sides of issues and one group saying that X is true and Y is false, we need to do all we can to find out whether Y is true or not. The scientific method requires that we do all we can to test challenge a proposed hypothesis. We must never blindly believe or fall or something just because “scientists” say so. Keep up your great work and support those who are trying to find the truth, which is what we should be seeking.

    • Bob Strand says:

      Yes. And in answer to his question, “..what if your wrong.” we Would modify our hypothesis and continue with appropriate tests.

      • David L. Hagen says:

        Instead of his alarmist model, what if that writer applied Richard Feynmann’s high standard of scientific integrity – of examining EVERY possible explanation for the evidence? See Cargo Cult Science, Caltech 1974.

        • AlecM says:

          Ask him why the bidirectional photon diffusion physics, the basis of Climate Alchemy, just ‘has to be right’, when it breaches the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

          Remember:Max Planck’s radiative physics was correct because he assumed a vacuum therefore there are photons/EM waves in the space between the two emitters.. Bose and Einstein also assumed a vacuum. However, the atmosphere is not a vacuum and emits its GHG IR bands as a virtual emitter exactly coincident with the Earth’s surface.

          No space between the two emitters means there is no stored energy. Thus the bidirectional photon diffusion hypothesis of Goody ad Yung is plain wrong. The present Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation ‘back radiation’ concept devised by the late husband of the recently retired UK Met. Office Chief Scientist is being dropped, which why the Met. Office has recently announced that ‘the hiatus’ is a valid concept.

    • Nate says:

      Roy,

      Taking the stupidest person on the other side of the argument, and displaying their stupidity as exhibit A, is not a winning argument.

      Does get your side riled up though.

      • Gary W. says:

        Nate, I doubt if the letter writer is the stupidest global warming alarmist. Just maybe the most insulting and foul mouthed.

        Glad to know that your side never gets riled up *roll eyes*

      • Nate says:

        ‘the species and all other mammals will be forever wiped out’
        ‘Youve probably killed people ‘

        No sensible people on either side of the issue believe such things…

        • bezotch says:

          Given that believing such things precludes being sensible, that is tautologically true.

          I doubt Roy’s intent was to create a straw man to argue against, by implying “this is representative of a typical CAGW argument.”
          His intent was more likely along the lines of “this is what I sometimes have to put up with.”

          Roy does refer to it as “fan mail”, so he obviously takes it with a bit of humor. It is refreshing, as that quality seems to be in short supply lately.

        • Nate says:

          For pure entertainment value it is fine. But judjing by the comments some here believe that this is representative of a typical CAGW argument.

          This reminds me of all the times Fox News has gone out and found an extreme welfare cheat, or an immigrant who is a very bad dude, and showcased them. You may be surprised how many viewers think these are ‘representative of a typical’ case, and eat up this kind of story

          This clearly shows up in polls.

          • bezotch says:

            It isn’t just Fox News, virtually all the media does it,as do the politicians, activists and pretty much anyone pushing an agenda. And yes, they do it because it works. Rather than listen to what the other side is saying, it is intellectually easier to frame it as irrational and dismiss it.

            I’ve read about a hundred posts on this blog over the last couple of years and I have never seen a straw man argument or spin. You can agree or disagree with Roy’s opinions, but he is intellectually honest. Based on that, I presume that the “fan mail” was offered in a similar vein. As to what other commenters think, I can’t speak to that. It is hard to tell when people make outrageous comments on the internet, whether they sincerely believe these things or are just trolling.

            I can speak to how I interpreted it.
            The letter writer was not representative of “the other side”
            He was representative of “idiot”
            It was such a good representation, it was in its own way, a work of art. (now there’s an interesting idea…the museum of profane, uninformed rants. It would have significant cultural relevance)

            In large groups, there will be reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides. In fact, on certain topics, otherwise reasonable people turn into raving lunatics…such is human nature. There is a tendency for the person who knows the least, to yell the loudest. The “fan mail” was such an extreme example of this, it was impossible to read it and not laugh.

          • Nate says:

            True enough

          • darryl says:

            Increasingly, in the media, bad news is good news and good news is no news. The majority of the MSM in the United States is extending farther to the left, but sometimes farther to the right, whatever is necessary to get viewers. Whatever is necessary to exist.

            I expect most everyone who reads and posts here would agree that a fallout of extremism in the media is a factor in an increasingly divided U.S. and world. That is sad. It would seem Dr. Spencer just wanted to cast a light on what he experiences.

      • PaoloP says:

        He was neither trying to win argument, nor showing this rant as exhibit A.

    • Charles Russell says:

      Schopenhauer wrote “All truth passes through three stages, first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as being self-evident”.

  2. Jim Thompson says:

    Hi Dr. Roy,

    And you spent all that time and money on your education for this? Ain’t science wonderful?

    Seriously, thanks for all you do to keep facts in front of an opinionated (and often ignorant) public. A lot of us really appreciate it.

  3. ren says:

    “Oh, please! There is no orderly way to move 186,000 people out of cities, particularly with flooded roads. The law enforcement and related agencies of the cities involved deserve much credit for the fact that folks were able to evacuate successfully.”
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article133485154.html

  4. ren says:

    “Saying the reservoir has receded enough to handle inflows from approaching storms, operators at troubled Oroville Dam said Friday they would continue to dial back releases from its cracked main spillway in hopes of easing pressure on the Feather River and levees downstream.

    With Lake Oroville approaching normal flood-control levels for this time of year, dam operators on Friday cut outflows from 80,000 cubic feet per second down to 70,000 cfs. They will re-evaluate Saturday to see if they can dial back even further, to 60,000 cfs. In the heat of the crisis that erupted Sunday, the spillway roared at 100,000 cfs.”
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article133326709.html

    • Ronald Braud says:

      With regard to the genius fan’s so much as saying global warming denial is the cause of the Oroville Dam problems, perhaps the fan needs to obtain some knowledge of the natural ArkStorms which have happened to California six times in the past two thousand years 212, 440, 606, 1029, 1418, 1862. The 1862 storm(rained for almost 45 days) which flooded much of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and turned the Mojave into a lake wasn’t even the worst such storm.
      USGS ArkStorm Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P-N-HA9iS8

  5. Kent says:

    I’ll bet he drives a car too.

    • Paul says:

      And apparently electricity.

      • Bill says:

        Well, yes, but I’ll bet he has a stationary bike hooked up to a generator to power his laptop and router while he composes his screeds. Peddle faster!

        • Rhee says:

          Well, he is “peddling” all right, but few of us are buying what he “peddles”. Although I’d bet he would think he can *pedal* his stationary bike to go to work each morning, assuming he has a job and isn’t hiding in mommy’s basement.

  6. Buck Turgidson says:

    Someone forgot to take their pills that day. Holy smokes.

  7. Hello Roy,
    My wife and I met you in 2010 when we shared transportation to the Chicago Climate conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute. I have followed your efforts and others and appreciate all your efforts toward factual science.
    Question: I am a lifetime member of the Oxford Club which is basically a financial advisory service. Recently a Mr. Fessler has been making wild predictions about EV’s being the wave of the future and how “Big Oil” is going to collapse, etc. I see red with these kind of articles but don’t know how to comment. Do you have any suggestions?
    Thanks, Bill Snyer

    • John Hultquist says:

      There is a good summary regarding oil on WUWT. Read the comments because there is information presented there, also.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/17/oil-will-we-run-out/

      As for EVs, in the USA only a small fraction of autos out of 17,000,000 sold last year are not internal combustion. These, and the millions sold in 2015, 2014, 2013 … you can do the rest.
      Further, a fleet of EVs will need electricity and much of that will come from combined-cycle power plants (uses both gas and a steam turbine). Next comes taxes on the miles driven to help pay for the infrastructure now paid for with gas taxes. A little of the shine taken off that subsidized EV. Those — meaning other people’s money (OPM) — will be decreasing also. So an EV-wave will be a tiny wave, hardly noticed by Big Oil.

      • Bill says:

        Then you have to consider the volume of batteries that would have to be produced to support EV fleets anywhere near the size of the US gasoline powered fleet. There isn’t enough battery production (not to mention the supply of raw materials for said batteries) in the world to produce sufficient batteries.

      • jbsay says:

        The answer to whether EV’s will take off depend’s on peoples values not technology.

        We shifted from coal to oil and natural gas in the early 20th century despite higher cost because we valued oil and NG more as they were cleaner and easier to deal with.

        From the perspective of purportedly objective measures EV’s do not and will not replace gasoline vehicles any time soon.

        However if people prize their prius or Tesla or whatever despite its objectively lower value, the market could transform.

        Finally it is likely the objective measures will eventually favor EV’s – but not likely soon.

        It is important to remember that what really matters is our subjective values.

        I have no right to interfere with your choice of a prius or locally grown organic vegetables, or any other personal choice you make that I think is left wing nut brain dead stupid. So long as that is your personal choice.

        What I oppose is your efforts to impose your choice on my by force. It is that you are limiting my freedom that is the fundimental problem, not that your choice is stupid.

      • Nate says:

        ‘A tiny wave’

        Has been said so often before, about other ‘waves’

        Smart phones

        LED lighting

        Solar panels

        Cable TV

        • Kyle T says:

          Cite references that these were all said to be “a tiny wave.”

          As with most new technology, it is a case waiting for commercial viability and bending down the cost curve. Once that occurs, technology becomes widespread. Not too much emailing when the great advancement in technology was the 9600 baud modem on dial-up.

          Now that LED is comparable to CFL’s they are more widespread. But that is a recent price drop. When 4 Sylvania incandescents were $1.50 and a single LED was $19.98, not a lot of demand. Now that LED are $5.00 for a two-pack, more demand.

          The challenge with EV is the availability of natural resources. It will be a tiny wave until there is a major change in technology that will allow use of readily available resources and improve the battery life. Due to distance travel, hybrids will still dominate, but the natural resource issue still exists.

    • Mel Famie says:

      Where does the electricity come from? Is that better than burning gasoline? What are the relative efficiencies (both because of Second Law and transmission losses)?

  8. Mike M. says:

    Astonishing.

    Thank you, Roy, for maintaining this excellent site in spite of such abuse.

  9. Alan says:

    “Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the German’s bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain’t over now! Cause when the going gets tough.. The tough get goin’. Who’s with me?” – Animal House

    • E. Calvin Beisner says:

      The Germans bombed Pearl? Wow! My whole historical education was wrong!

    • jim says:

      Here is a better one than the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor:

      “Argentina renamed, reconditioned and rearmed
      the U.S.S. Phoenix. which was In in Pearl Harbor
      when Japanese jets bombed and strafed the American
      fleet in the Pacific Dec 7. 1941.”

      Note the Japanese JETS!
      That is actually from the Eugene Register-Guard – Apr 17, 1982

  10. Mike Bromley says:

    Whomever this is, and I won’t bother being gender-specific, has got an obsession with posterior orifices. That seems to be the only outlet for their anger. Funny, however, is the implied question about what is the baseline climate state….?

    Nobody knows…..but you’re a posterior orifice because you don’t…I think….Wow, what an angry outburst!

  11. Wendy G. says:

    “Trust me, the species would do a lot better without ignorant, arrogant assholes like you.“

    And there you have it, folks…the true Nazis of the world. They would gladly send us to the gas chambers (even if they do have a large carbon footprint) because they are the only ones who deserve to breathe the precious air of this planet and their beliefs are the only ones worthy of the species.

    I do wonder, though, have they ever asked themselves the question: ‘What if I’m wrong?’

    • Edward Caryl says:

      They have never asked themselves that question. Their logic goes like this: I exist, therefore I cannot possibly be wrong! My belief is absolute truth! (All shouted at the top of their lungs, in a somewhat desperate way.)

      • Lewis says:

        Ah, the true believers. And they accuse Trump of fascism. Sorry folks, watch the protesters – they will become dangerous.

    • blaze says:

      I ask myself that question all the time…and the answer is, it would have little consequence other than becoming less reliant on a finite resource. However, if Dr Roy is wrong, the ecosystems as we know them are in for a dramatic ride…slow by human standards, but incredibly fast in historical terms.

      • Bart says:

        Says a comfy Westerner who already derives the benefits of fossil fuels, and doesn’t give a fig about people dying from energy poverty in other parts of the world.

        If you are wrong, we will have driven many rare birds to extinction by chopping them up in windmills. We will have polluted our groundwater with the runoff from heavy metals production for batteries, and harsh chemical waste from the manufacture of solar cells. And, we will have consigned billions of people to earlier deaths and unhappier lives by denying them the lifegiving benefits of cheap energy.

        If Dr. Spencer is wrong – nothing will be worse. The Earth will get a little warmer, leading to greater quality of life, and CO2 will rise to levels at which plants are most productive. And, billions of people will be lifted out of poverty and despair.

        Yet, Dr. Spencer is not wrong. But, you may still succeed in despoiling the Earth by adding your voice to a bunch of neurotics who want to destroy life on the planet in order to save it.

        • Nate says:

          ‘polluted our groundwater with the runoff’

          I thought Trump admin welcomes this? At least when its from a coal mine.

          ‘we will have driven many rare birds to extinction by chopping them up in windmills.’

          ‘we will have consigned billions of people to earlier deaths’

          Bart, Puleeez…hyperbole much?

          Show me ANY research indicating billions will die from clean energy implimentation.

          No-one has suggested that impoverished countries should NOT use energy to develop. Take India with a billion people. they are developing as fast as they can, but with a mix of FF and green energy.

          Meanwhile, it is well-established that smog from FF does cause early deaths. For example:

          http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2056553/smog-linked-third-deaths-china-more-deadly-smoking-study-finds

          • Nate says:

            If you are truly concerned about bird deaths, you should advocate for laws banning outdoor cats and tall buildings

            http://tinyurl.com/j9hcqlf

          • David Appell says:

            Here are some data on bird deaths. Both show that far more birds are killed by generating power with coal and oil than with wind and solar, even on a per unit energy basis:

            “Avian Mortality by Energy Source,” US News, 8/22/14
            http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

            “Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”
            – The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 1924. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

          • Bart says:

            “If you are truly concerned about bird deaths, you should advocate for laws banning outdoor cats and tall buildings”

            Red herring. The birds killed in this way are of the small, rapidly reproducing variety. The birds killed by windmills are specifically the large, slowly reproducing, and already endangered soaring raptors of the sky, and the environmentally necessary carrion fowl, as well as the insect controlling bats.

          • Bart says:

            Freely available on the web. Do you know how to “google”?

          • David Appell says:

            Translation: Bart doesn’t have the data himself, and so can only tell you to look it up for yourself.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            It would helpful if YOU provide the source because Google gives many sources with contradictory information and some sources have a hidden agenda making them suspect.

            This one is an actual paper for a location with several thousand turbines

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2007-032/abstract

            the author also says “”My best estimate for golden eagle fatalities in the Altamont Pass was 60 per year until the last couple of years when the old turbines started getting replaced by larger turbines that are being more carefully sited to reduce eagle fatalities,” Smallwood said. Today, Smallwood said the number of eagle fatalities is much lower.

            Hard to tell if this is a lot or not, compared to deaths from buildings and other structures which can be substantial.

          • Bart says:

            Cui bono? You have to learn to separate industry hype from reality. Do not fool yourself because of wishful thinking.

          • Nate says:

            Again show me your source…this was from a legit publication

    • Nate says:

      Wendy,

      ‘What if Im wrong’, well then we have some nice, useful green technology, green jobs, and cleaner air. Growth just in solar and wind jobs dwarfs any possible growth in coal jobs

      ever asked yourselves the question: What if Im wrong?

      • Bart says:

        Broken window fallacy. Jobs that produce inefficiency create unseen opportunity costs that produce a drag on progress. The opportunity costs of grossly inefficient wind and solar power are enormous.

        • Nate says:

          Wind and solar ‘grossly ineffcient’. Thats a new one. How so? Compared to what?

          Solar panels at 15-20% efficiency are about 100 x more efficient than fuel obtained from plants like corn ethanol.

          Wind turbines are quite efficient, 30-40%. More so than car engines.

          Where do you get these ideas?

          • Nate says:

            So no evidence for your ‘billions of deaths’, now you’re worried about ‘opportunity costs’ . Fine then have a carbon tax, let the market decide what green energy works best. But dont be surprised if wind and solar do well.

          • Bart says:

            Solar and wind power typically provide a small percentage of nameplate power, on the order of 10-20%. The wind does not always blow, the Sun does not always shine. If wind and solar were a good deal, they would not need such massive subsidies. Their manufacture, transport, and maintenance are, themselves, dependent on fossil fuels.

            They are grossly inefficient in terms of fabrication, maintenance, and land use. It’s farcical – if we were ever to install enough solar and wind components to make a serious dent in our energy appetite, it would carpet the land from sea to shining sea, and that in itself would have massive environmental impacts. Solar panels are specifically constructed of materials engineered to absorb as much sunlight as possible. You are talking UHI on steroids.

            There is only one “green” technology that can vie with fossil fuels, and that is nuclear power. Wind power is, itself, a variant of solar power, with winds driven by the diurnal heating cycle. Fossil fuels are solar power, stored over eons of time. There is no way that instantaneous solar power can compete with that. Nuclear power can, because of the enormous energy locked away according to the equation E = mc^2. If you are not serious about nuclear power, then you are not interested in a solution to this invented “problem”.

            And, I did not say “billions of deaths”. I said “we will have consigned billions of people to earlier deaths and unhappier lives”. Energy poverty is already calculated to produce millions of premature deaths in the developing world compared to the developed world. But, if you so easily dismiss their pain and suffering, even in the developed parts of the globe, there are relative levels of energy poverty. It does not cut lives short as dramatically as it does in the developing world, but it does impact them. The quality of life of every person on Earth is affected to some degree by energy poverty.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, a bunch of unproven alarmist-type assertions. No actual research to back it up. Why should anyone take it seriously?

            Solar and wind will have to ‘blanket the country’ . Nonsense! Show me a calculation, a paper, or any source that demonstrates that.

            ‘We will consign billions to early deaths’. Show me how ‘we’ are planning to do this. Show me where it is written in climate agreements that poor countries must be deprived of energy.

          • Bart says:

            BTW, a tax is not a pro-market thing. Solar and wind cannot stand on their own. What you are talking about is subsidy, which is the direct opposite of pro-market.

            A tax does not produce value. You cannot conjure up the resources needed to produce the infrastructure by shuffling pieces of paper. You can only redirect resources from other applications. That is an opportunity cost, because the resources that were redirected were for things that would actually improve our quality of life, instead of merely rearranging the sources from which we derive the energy that drives wealth creation.

          • Nate says:

            Bart you seem to like nuclear. Plenty of subsidies got it started. That was ok? Clearly govt has always had a role in energy markets

            BTW solar is near the $1-watt competitive point. How did costs come down so quickly? Hmmmm

          • Bart says:

            Nate – I am not opposed to temporary subsidies if they make sense, if they promise a positive return in the future, and/or if they contribute to our national defense, which is itself a positive dividend.

            Subsidies for wind and solar just do not make sense. Even after all the ungodly sums of money spent on them, they nowhere produce a substantial portion of any country’s energy needs on a yearly averaged basis. And, that was all entirely predictable. It’s been known for decades. Any thorough and honest accounting shows it widescreen. That is why Google abandoned its renewable energy initiative. The numbers are awful. And, in return, they despoil the environment, killing birds and creating toxic residues from mining and processing.

            Nuclear, on the other hand, because of the prodigious amounts of energy stored in even a tiny grain of mass, is extremely viable with minimal environmental impact.

          • Bart says:

            “BTW solar is near the $1-watt competitive point. How did costs come down so quickly? Hmmmm”

            BTW, a watt is not a quantity, but a rate. In the US mainland, consumers pay about 8 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity. If you meant $1 per kWh, then 6X the highest going rate is not very competitive. Furthermore, it would be unlikely to be even there without all the beggar-thy-neighbor subsidies.

            Don’t fall for the hype. It’s a loser.

          • David Appell says:

            Power plants are rated by the power they produce, not the energy.

          • Nate says:

            Bart

            ‘BTW, a watt is not a quantity, but a rate. In the US mainland, consumers pay about 8 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity. If you meant $1 per kWh, then 6X the highest going rate is not very competitive’

            Thank you but I do know the difference between a W and kWh and no I did not at all mean $1/kWh.

            It is widely understood that $1 per peak W of generating capacity is a key criterion for competitiveness, and that the industry is already near this point, at least for utility-scale projects.

            You regard the huge investment in solar all over the world as somehow misguided, and make blanket pooh-poohing statements,yet you clearly dont seem to be aware of some basic facts about it.

            ‘ they nowhere produce a substantial portion of any countrys energy needs’

            One could have said this about Hydrolectric in 1930, or Nuclear in 1960, or Natural Gas in 1970. Now these are 16, 11, 22% of power generation in US.

            The ramp-up of solar and wind electric energy (now ~ 4 %) will happen, as it did with these others, over decades.

          • Bart says:

            “It is widely understood that…”

            Famous last words. The scientific equivalent of “hold my beer, and watch this!”

            “The ramp-up of solar and wind electric energy (now ~ 4 %) will happen, as it did with these others, over decades.”

            It won’t. At some point, the losses will become so severe that it will be abandoned. In the end, it will not even make a dent in fossil fuel consumption because of Jevons’ Paradox. But, it will succeed in producing enormous quantities of toxic waste, several bird species will undoubtedly disappear forever, and pesticide use will expand as bat populations decline precipitously.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Jevons paradox? Now you’re just throwing whatever nonsense you can find at solar and wind and see what sticks. So far, nothing survives scrutiny and you don’t provide data.

            Pollution: Show me how much compared to FF. FF produce very much proven pollution, on-going for decades. Extraction of coal: Puleez. Lots of pollution, toxic runoff. Power plants: toxic So2, particulates, mercury, toxic ash Petroleum: oil spills- uggghhhh.

            Manufacture and transport of solar panels: it uses FF. Show me numbers-a tiny fraction of total generated. This has been debunked many times.

            I like nuclear also- but the waste storage, capital costs, and NIMBY problems have not been solved.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘At some point, the losses will become so severe that it will be abandoned. In the end, it will not even make a dent in fossil fuel consumption because of Jevons Paradox. But, it will succeed in producing enormous quantities of toxic waste, several bird species will undoubtedly disappear forever, and pesticide use will expand as bat populations decline precipitously.’

            You seem remarkably confident that TERRIBLE things will DEFINITELY happen if we invest in solar and wind. Its more than a little over the top.

            I am sure you have noticed that such GLOOM and DOOM predictions are very often wrong. ‘We’re about to run out of oil’ ‘Overpopulation is time bomb’ etc

        • Nate says:

          Bart,

          ‘You cannot conjure up the resources needed to produce the infrastructure by shuffling pieces of paper. You can only redirect resources from other applications.’

          Im not an economist. Is that your field? You seem to be saying economics is a zero sum game. Then how does an economy (GDP) ever grow?

          Example, WWII, industries shifted from making cars to making tanks planes, and ships. The GDP grew like mad. Yes there was debt, but the economy continued to grow and the debt got paid.

          If I invest in solar for my house-after a few years i have no debt and little or no electric bill. Money is freed up to spend on other things and grow gdp.

          • Nate says:

            Govt taxes us to build infrastructure. Transcontinental railroad. Interstate highways. The internet.

            All of these produced economic expansion, beyond the mere spending to build them.

          • Bart says:

            “If I invest in solar for my house-after a few years i have no debt and little or no electric bill. Money is freed up to spend on other things and grow gdp.”

            The payback period is probably longer than you think. You have interest payments, and you have the loss of dividends that money could have been making for you if invested elsewhere, which is an opportunity cost. The lifetime is on the order of something like two decades, so you’re going to have to do a reinstallation at some point, possibly before you have recovered a net positive ROI. And, at that point, you have to draw on an entirely new set of funds to do it all over again.

            With subsidies, you can personally gain, at the expense of others, so society at large sees no net benefit. The cost is the cost, whether it is shouldered by you, or taken out of other peoples’ pockets.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘The payback period is probably longer than you think.You have interest payments, and you have the loss of dividends that money could have been making for you if invested elsewhere, which is an opportunity cost. The lifetime is on the order of something like two decades, so youre going to have to do a reinstallation at some point, possibly before you have recovered a net positive ROI.

            You make a lot of ‘probably’ and ‘possibly’ statements because you probably have not actually looked into it. Dont invest in solar if you dont want to.

            I have looked into it in detail and it turns out to be an excellent investment with a short payback time and nice ROI. Obviously many, many people have come to the same conclusion.

            Your could have ‘invested elsewhere’ argument suggests that nobody should ever start a business because they could have invested that money in the stock market or similar.

        • Bart says:

          “Then how does an economy (GDP) ever grow?”

          It grows by producing things that increase the range and availability of goods and services.

          “All of these produced economic expansion, beyond the mere spending to build them.”

          Trains and interstate highways increased the flow of goods and services from one place to another. They did not merely displace something that was already there. They particularly did not displace things that provided more rapid efficient transportation for that flow. They were the most rapid and efficient means for doing so.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “They were the most rapid and efficient means for doing so.”

            Well, at least as you don’t count their negative externalities.

          • Nate says:

            So you seem to agree that taxing people to build things that expand the economy are good things.

            You also agreed that temporary subsidies are good things, when it was for nuclear at least.

            But your argument that building something that DISPLACES what we have is pointless?

            But solar and nuclear both could be argued are or were displacing other energy sources like coal. So…

            You like nuclear because the fuel is concentrated and cheap and relatively plentiful.

            Solar, the fuel is cheap ($0) and plentiful. Concentrated enough to be practical and cost effective.

            For example, 100% of peak US power can be supplied by an area in Arizona 50mi x 50mi. Not that you would want 100% solar because of intermittency. But solar could be a big portion of it.

            So I dont understand your virulent, unbending opposition to getting nearly free energy from the sun (or wind)?

          • Bart says:

            We need to be looking at other sources, Nate. Although it is by no means a given, and all the past proclamations that we would run out of oil turned out to be wrong, they were wrong because we kept finding more fields, and more efficient methods of extraction. But, that is not guaranteed to last forever, and we could be approaching limits. A wise policy must plan for a potential decline in FF production.

            The replacement, hands down, in terms of efficiency and low environmental footprint, is nuclear. It is not even a close contest. Solar and wind power cannot sustain themselves, and they are horrible for the environment.

          • Bart says:

            Have you ever calculated how much material it would take to cover a 50mi X 50mi area with solar panels? Try it sometime. It’s eye-opening.

            That is 70 billion square feet. To put that into perspective, global aluminum production is about 33 million tonnes, which at a density of 2.7 tonne/m^3 is about 12 million cubic meters, or 432 million cubic feet/year. So if, say, we needed the equivalent of 3 inches of aluminum per square foot to cover that area, we would take (3/12)*70e9/432e6 = 41 years of current total global world production to do it. Obviously, we can’t use all of the world’s aluminum to do that. US production is about 3.5% of total world production, so we’re talking over 1000 years if we use total US production. And, aluminum production is very energy intensive.

            How are you going to perform maintenance on them? With a life cycle of perhaps a couple of decades, there is going to be constant maintenance. Better include roadways – that’ll at least double the area covered. How many personnel are going to be required to maintain it? How are they going to transport themselves? How much of the energy is going to be wasted that way?

            How much wildlife habitat will be destroyed? Do you have any idea how hot it is going to get in that area? These panels, you know, are specifically designed to absorb as much sunlight as possible. More than asphalt. It’d likely get hot enough to spawn destructive weather patterns, which would then rip apart the panels.

            I bet the calculation assumes steerable panels, as well, because you only get about half the total average power with nonsteerable units. How many millions of failure-prone electric motors and bearings and such would that take?

            It just doesn’t close, when you look at the numbers. The things are just horribly inefficient. And, that’s not even accounting for the fact that the solar farms installed to date have returned only a low percentage of the nameplate rating. If you factor that in, you may need 5X or more of the area you think you do.

            “So I dont understand your virulent, unbending opposition to getting nearly free energy from the sun (or wind)?”

            Because it makes no sense. “Free energy” is not free. The numbers are awful, and the environmental impacts are horrific. It is stupid, feel-good nonsense.

          • Bart says:

            In addition to all of the above, do you have any idea of the toxic waste produced by solar panel manufacture? Whole lakes of toxic runoff have been created in China. It’s nasty stuff. There’s much more, but I think this link may get past the site filter, since it’s NatGeo. Google on solar panel production pollution and see what you find.

            Oil companies are not the only commercial entity that wants to deceive you to make a buck. Big Wind and Big Solar are in it for the buck, too. Do not swallow all the hype. This is bad stuff, and wishful thinking will not make it better.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Good point about the amount of materials, though not sure so much Al would be needed, mostly thin Si (from sand, which we have lots of).

            That area is for 100% or 10^12W, we will not need to be 100% solar. Perhaps 10-20%.

            There is solar thermal, which uses mirrors, again very little metal lots of glass.

            I would expect it to be distributed widely, not all in one spot in the dessert.

            On the other hand, all energy and (other) infrastructure for a country this large uses VAST amounts of materials. Mining coal or tar sand digs up vast areas of the earth. Gas and oil pipelines use vast amounts of metal. Roadways us vast amounts of asphalt. None of these were built in a year. Dams use vast amounts of concrete.

            Its worth calculating the actual amount of material needed for any of these.

            State of the art solar uses very thin films of material (various). So it is the substrate material and frame beneath to worry about.

          • Bart says:

            It just doesn’t close, Nate. Why bother? It isn’t worth it. Nuclear can provide all our energy needs with a relatively minuscule footprint, and far, far less effort for materials and maintenance.

            What I see from my viewpoint is continued piling of stupidity on top of stupidity.

            1) We are not significantly affecting CO2 levels

            2) Even if we were, there is no physical law that says it must result in net warming and, indeed, there is no indication of significant non-natural warming in the data

            3) Even if we were and there were, there is no downside – warm is better than cold, plants and thereby life in general thrive on higher CO2 levels, and more evenly distributed global temperatures would reduce severe weather. If we could control CO2 levels, and if they did provide more warmth, a rational policy would be to produce more of it.

            4) Even if we were and there were and it was bad, the purported “cures” are worse than even the hypothetical disease. Wind and solar are horrifically inefficient, and horrific for the environment.

            The AGW panic is just dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. It is a throwback to shamans and voodoo and rain dances and feeding virgins into the volcano to control the weather. It is a digression to pre-Enlightment, primitive superstition and sacrificial religion.

          • Nate says:

            FYI,

            Worldwide there has been 300 GW solar peak capacity installed, 77 GW in last year. This is ~ 1/3 of total US peak electric power.

          • Bart says:

            PS – you can’t just build it all with sand. You have to have support structure. And, anyway, the flimsier the materials, the more vulnerable they are damage from weather fronts, wildlife… hell, bird poop (I guess maybe that’s a reason to kill off all the big birds with the windmills/sarc).

            It’s a fantasy. Solar power is no more “free” than any other source. It all requires investment into infrastructure to produce and transport.

            We didn’t even get into electrical power transport… I think I’ll skip that for now, except to say, the longer your power lines, the more losses.

          • Bart says:

            “Worldwide there has been 300 GW solar peak capacity installed, 77 GW in last year. This is ~ 1/3 of total US peak electric power.”

            Nameplate. Not actual production – you’d be lucky to get 20% of nameplate average, with significant intermittancy.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            You keep bring up nammeplate. It is true that sun doesn’t shine all the time. That is factored when figuring ROI and location.

            But demand also peaks and is tiny at night, so it is close enough to discuss peak demand and peak generation, partucularly for sunbelt

          • Bart says:

            And, incidentally, worldwide power consumption is on the order of 12 TW average. So, even if you could get nameplate, which you can’t, that amounts to about 2.5% of total worldwide consumption. At 20% nameplate, it’s just 0.5%. Even after all that expenditure. And, it all requires FF backup for outages and nighttime. Talk about inefficiency!

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Your 3 inch layer of aluminum is very generous. I would say at most 1/10th of this is on current model solar panels.

            No matter our estimates because lets say we want to generate 1/3 of US peak by solar. That is ~ 300 GW. That is in fact what has ALREADY been manufactured in the world (most of it in last 5 y).

            Face it, it is happening whether you approve or not.

          • Bart says:

            “No matter our estimates because lets say we want to generate 1/3 of US peak by solar. That is ~ 300 GW. That is in fact what has ALREADY been manufactured in the world (most of it in last 5 y).”

            Nonsense. You are comparing apples to tennis balls.

            Compared to worldwide consumption, it is only 2.5%, at high noon relative to the solar panels, plus or minus a few hours. News flash – we do not consume electrical power for a few hours around noon-time.

            Relative to all daylight hours, that figure will reduce to perhaps 0.5%. Relative to a full diurnal cycle, perhaps 0.25%. And, that is only on clear, cloudless days.

            It is utterly negligible, even after all the expense and vast subsidization. Take away the subsidies, and it will collapse overnight.

            Because, it fundamentally does not make economic sense. Don’t be such a rube.

          • Nate says:

            12 TW. Where do you get that? I find 20,000 TWh. 24*365 h/year = 8800 h Ave power = 2.3 TW

          • Nate says:

            Lets use some real numbers and realistic sunlight shall we?

            https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity-domestic-consumption-data-by-region.html

            show world annual consumption 20,000 TWh

            US annual consumption is 3800 Twh

            Average insolation in SW US: 6.5 kwh/day/m^2 here

            http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg

            so for panels rated at 1 kw we’ll get 6.5kwh/dayx365 days = 2400 kWh/year

            300 GW rated panels is 300,000,000 x 1 kW

            so we’ll get 3×10^8 x 2400 kWh/year = 7.2 x 10^11 kWh = 720 TWh.

            So this is 720/3800 = 19% of US consumption

            and 3.6% or world consumption

            So my point is we could already get 19% of US electric needs with what has been manufactured recently in the world.

            It does not appear to be limited by world supply of materials.

          • Bart says:

            12 TW is total energy average rate of consumption. Electricity is less right now, but if you start charging up transportation off the grid, that is going to shift.

            But, let’s assume your 20,000 TWh, just to be nice. That’s a 2.3 TW yearly average rate (divide 20,000 by the number of hours in a year). Your 300 GW is peak only. If we assume (generously) that power is proportional to the cosine of the Sun angle off the panel, you will get about 300 GW / pi = 95 GW average over the day. That average would hold over the year as well, if every day were sunny. But, probably at least 1/3 are not, so you get more like 60 GW yearly average. 60/2.3e3 = 2.6%. So, we’re right back where we started. It is a pittance of power.

            “Average insolation in SW US: 6.5 kwh/day/m^2 here…so for panels rated at 1 kw well get 6.5kwh/dayx365 days = 2400 kWh/year”

            That’d be no. In the first place, efficiency of solar panels is south of 20%, so if you are getting insolation equal to 6.5 kWh/day/m^2, you are getting power – PEAK power mind you, and 20% is really, really optimistic – of less than 1.3 kWh/day/m^2. And, then you lost the “m^2” term, and your calculations became gibberish.

            Nate, the math is beyond you. Don’t be a lemming.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            I knew eventually you would get around to denying math. Why stop with denying logic and common sense.

            Bart you clearly are ill informed on solar and how to do standard calcs related to it.

            Panel eff is already included in its rating.

            Dont believe my calcs. Ok. Find a solar calculator online (eg NRL) and chevk them.

          • Bart says:

            Your “calcs” aren’t even math, and your assumptions would make Pollyanna blush with reticence. You have units in ‘per meter squared’ that magically disappear. You assume 100% sunlight to electricity conversion. It’s a joke. Get a grip.

          • Nate says:

            ‘insolation equal to 6.5 kWh/day/m^2, you are getting power PEAK power mind you, and 20% is really, really optimistic of less than 1.3 kWh/day/m^2. And, then you lost the m^2 term, and your calculations became gibberish.’

            No not gibberish at all, standard solar calc. If something about it does not make sense, then ask for clarification..

            6.5kWh/day/m^2 is what you get at that location from the sun on average during a year on a flat m^2 area. Peak solar power on 1 m^2 is 1 kW. Hence if you have a panel rated 1 kW, that means peak power delivered will EQUAL that of a 1 m^2 100% efficient panel .

            Hence that panel rated 1kW will deliver 6.5kWh/day on average at that location. This is how it works.

            BTW the 1kW panel is going to be larger than 1 m^2, because efficiency is not 100%

          • Bart says:

            You did not specify the area of your solar panel. A typical solar panel is about 1.6 m^2 and produces about 0.27 kW peak. Scaled to 1 m^2, that is about 0.17 kW/m^2. Optimistic average over a cloudless day and night is 0.17/pi = 0.054 kW/m^2. That works out to 471 kWh/year/m^2, if you have a year of cloudless days, which you won’t. Scale it by about 2/3 for that to get about 314 kWh/year/m^2. That is about 1/8th of your calculation. Nearly an order of magnitude.

            Then, you had this mishmash:

            300 GW rated panels is 300,000,000 x 1 kW

            so well get 310^8 x 2400 kWh/year = 7.2 x 10^11 kWh = 720 TWh.

            Say what? 300 GW over a year is 2,630 TWh over a year. That’s day and night with peak power output. Divide by pi to get the (optimistic) daily average, and that is 837 TWh/year. Multiple by 2/3 to account for cloudy days, and you are at 558 TWh/year.You can’t compare that to the US-only to get an apples to apples comparison because it is a world figure. But, it is only 2.7% of 20,000 TWh.

            That would barely keep up with growth in consumption, especially if we start charging millions of electric vehicles. And, it is a world figure. And, at 314 kWh/year/m^2, that requires (558 TWh/year)/(314 kWh/year/m^2) = 1.8 billion square meters = 686 square miles, which is an area of a square that is 26 mi X 26 mi. And thus we see that your earlier suggestion that we could provide all our electricity with a 50 mi X 50 mi area was wildly optimistic – that gives us about (50/26)^2*2.7% = 10% of our current usage.

            The more layers of the onion you peel back, and the more you factor in inefficiencies, the worse things get. It’s just awful. A complete fantasy.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Panel area is irrelevant in the calc I was doing since the panel rating of 1 kW was given.

            300 GW capacity gives 720 Twh/ year (I say) or 558 TWh/year (you say). So close enough, we finally agree on something.

            You calculate % of world 558 Twh/20000 Twh and get 2.7%, ok fine.

            You say 26 mi X 26 mi for that, fine, I agree.

            Then you do a sleight of hand.

            ‘And thus we see that your earlier suggestion that we could provide all our electricity with a 50 mi X 50 mi area was wildly optimistic that gives us about (50/26)^2*2.7% = 10% of our current usage.’

            Wrong. You are using 2.7% for the US. That was for world! For US the % would be 558TWh/3800 TWh = 15%. So continuing your calc, this would give (50/26)^2*15 = 54% of US.

            Bart, even Saudi Arabia, awash in oil, gets that they should invest heavily in solar, and are doing so.

          • Bart says:

            Nate – your idea that we can magically match the ENTIRE WORLD’s production in any reasonable time is pure fantasy. You have to scale it to get an apples to apples comparison. The figure is 2.7%. It is fundamentally dishonest to blow that up to 15%.

            I agree that 50 mi X 50 mi is not “wildly optimistic”, just hugely unrealistic. When you factor in all the inefficiencies, and the area needed for access roads and so forth, the area covered would need to be about 300 mi X 300 mi, i.e., just about the entire state of Arizona. And, that’s not even including all the area needed for energy storage if you are ever going to provide 24/7 power (though, there are no easy means for that, either – energy storage suffers from the fact that any means of rapidly storing energy is also a means of rapidly releasing it, with potentially catastrophic consequences).

            We’ve been through the numbers. It’s never going to make a significant dent in our energy appetite. And, the harm it would do to the environment is beyond imagining.

            If you really think AGW is a problem over which we have control (I assure you, it is not), then you need to jump on the nuclear train. It is the only realistic “green” alternative energy source of any significance.

          • Nate says:

            The comparison of world to US that I made was not dishonest at all. Unlike what you did, I made it clear (at least attempted to) what I was doing.

            My point is simply this. US consumption is ~ 20% of world electric power.

            Only a small amount of imagination is required to understand that world total produced in ~ 5 y, could be several times larger in a couple of decades.

            Thus not unreasonable to think current world amount(300 GW) could be provided just to the US in 20 years or so.

            This year solar production was 77 GW in world, and the rate has increased every year. Even if held constant, in 20 y that would produce 1500 GW. This is 5 x current world total. Recall that US is 1/5 of world. 1/5 of 1500 is 300.

            My point is simply that it is not at all unrealistic to think that in 20 y a significant fraction of US power could (and likely will) be solar. Your own calc says 300 GW would provide 20%.

            20% ~ Gas > hydro > nuclear

          • Bart says:

            In 20 years, half of those panels will be shot and need replacement.

            Oh, well. I’ve tried to open your eyes. You insist on wishful thinking. Watch and see what happens.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Youve convinced me that you have strong beliefs that would make you reluctant to trust in renewable energy. So dont invest in it, fine.

            Others like me have looked in to it in detail, come to a very different conclusion.

            But please stop trying to convince others with the outrageous, easily refuted assertions.

          • Bart says:

            You didn’t refute anything. Just painted a bunch of wholly unrealistic scenarios, made inappropriate analogies, and covered your ears and chanted “nah, nah, nah”.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            If you make an outrageous claim, such as ‘we will have consigned billions of people to earlier deaths’, and when asked- you provide no evidence, no research to support it. Then it is refuted.

  12. Russ says:

    Roy, it’s terrible that you have to put up with this kind of crap. I wonder if he sent the same message to the other 7 billion people on earth?

  13. Laurie says:

    Let me guess the author was Lewis Black . . . Evidence for my hypothesis . . .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU17kWPlAUA

    Happy Saturday! People . . .
    Nice to see you still kicking around Mike!

  14. Ric Werme says:

    Huh. I never would have guessed from FB dialog and posts here that you were an Oroville Dam Damn Denier. I learn something new every day!

    No charge for the alliteration.

  15. pete says:

    Roy,

    It is very easy to profile your ‘fan’:
    A leftist libtard who’s lost or is about to lose his funding and has no real qualifications by which he can apply for a real job.

  16. Dale Smith says:

    Would love to hear this guy’s explanation of Dark Matter. THAT could be entertaining!

    Roy, hope you will be invited to help Trump bring the EPA back to reality.

    Dale Smith

  17. Eric Barnes says:

    Thanks for sharing. Hopefully your pen pal is a little more reflective in the future.

  18. E. Calvin Beisner says:

    Matthew 5:10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

  19. ossqss says:

    Hummmm

    The snowflake seems to be melting in the parents basement again, or us that from Gina after Pruitt was confirmed yesterday, or both?

  20. Cary says:

    Well I guess with his use of vulgar language we see his education level. Keep up the good work Dr. Spencer.

  21. Marty says:

    Just a quick note to say I appreciate the work you are doing Roy. And don’t read too much into his comments one way or another.

  22. Curious George says:

    We can guess an author’s political orientation. The San Francisco Chronicle publishes Letters to the Editor in the same spirit.

  23. Andy May says:

    Roy, for what its worth, I read your book and enjoyed it very much. I still return to it from time to time to check things. I could pick a couple of nits here and there, but I agree with 99% of it.
    Andy

  24. John Hultquist says:

    When I read a rant such as this one, I wonder if the person needs mental support. I’d like to be able to send a note to friends, family, or the local health service place and get this person the help needed.

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Seems, Roy, that the following fits. Good work.

    If youre not taking flak, youre not over the target

  25. Tim S says:

    Bigotry, stereotypes, hatred, and character assignation are the tools of the “liberal” environmental movement. In addition, their enlightened view of free speech is to silence opposing views they think are “dangerous”, such as the violent protest and riot earlier this month at UC Berkeley because someone the anarchist movement didn’t like was invited to give a speech.

    • Denny says:

      It never takes long where on the political spectrum these writers sit.. Always the exact vocabulary, exact thoughts, no imagination. Not conducive to winning elections.

  26. Robert Stewart says:

    It’s pretty clear from your “Fan’s” comments that he will not be able to think his way out of the paper bag he’s wrapped himself in. Consider his analysis of the Oroville Dam crisis:

    ” .. that SYSTEM .. has failed, because the system was designed to control the flow of water, and right now, there is no such control ..”

    This is not the guy you want to hire to fix your septic system. He’s stuck at the problem recognition phase, and seems to think that is good enough. “The toilet no longer flushes because there’s a real mess on the bathroom floor. That’ll be $550 please.”

  27. Paul Sessler says:

    I’m going to put that guy down in the maybe column…..A few years ago I set out to find the answer about Global Warming I mean Climate Change or is it Extreme Weather Events today (I get so confused) being “The Greatest Threat” mankind is facing. I’ve spent several thousand hours of study and read very extensively on the subject just to get/have an educated opinion on the matter. I’m going to say Climate Change can and will be a Valid Threat to mankind however “if” science is correct it will be due to the Earth going back into a extended cold cycle and with a population base of 7.4 Billion and growing rapidly cold is the true enemy. Carbon Dioxide is a small variable in a complex system however for Government the objective is controlling resources and extraction of money. Carbon Dioxide required for life does both of those. I appreciate your work Mr. Spencer and your oversight of Satellite Temperature Monitoring (only accurate/validate method) and I’m sure the Gentlemen above when he used A-hole only meant it in the best possible way.

  28. Peter v says:

    Just proves that there is no real science in AGW, but lots of emotion and blind faith.

  29. lokenbr says:

    Haters gonna hate. At least he didn’t try to compare you to a Nazi 🙂

  30. Milton Hathaway says:

    I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Dr Spencer, but that ranting email is not about you. Clearly the young guy who sent it is going through some emotional trauma in his personal life – my guess would be a painful breakup, or maybe the loss of his job, maybe due to anger issues. I’m no psychologist, but I suspect some sort of projection/displacement syndrome.

    And yes, I, too am projecting. I look back on certain episodes in my (much) younger days with no small measure of embarrassment. I blame the testosterone. On the positive side, I never sent an arrogant self-absorbed rant to a highly respected scientist! (That would have required the use of a typewriter and a stamp, giving me time to get a grip.)

    • Robert Stewart says:

      If we’re talking about projecting painful, how about six months of making payments on his student loan after completing his degree … but still working as a barista? We can be pretty sure that he’s not one of last administration’s senior officials in the “intelligence community” since he didn’t threaten to release Dr. Spencers’s SS# and bank account data.

    • You are probably correct. I think there’s something else going on his life, and I set him off with my writing.

    • jim says:

      The simplest explanation is that he didn’t bother to do his homework and fell hook-line-&-sinker for Al Gore’s climate crap. He genuinely believes the earth will be a burnt cinder if we don’t bow to the green goddess and go back to cave living.

  31. Mark says:

    I enjoy reading your blog. You posts are always interesting. I especially look forward to your monthly global temperature summaries.

  32. Chris Hanley says:

    The opening sentence shows the underlying misanthropy behind much climate change alarmism.
    Richard Lindzen made the observation in 2009 “… finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake …”.
    I wonder if the anger is due not to anxiety that the planet is heading to catastrophe, but that it isn’t.

  33. Jim2 says:

    Let’s chip in and buy this guy a sandwich board because obviously, THE END IS NEAR!!!

    His attitude is why Republicans won so big last election. Keep it coming!

  34. Bil Danielson says:

    Dr Spencer, that was quite an interesting dose of the inane – thanks for posting it. The types that write stuff like that are generally pathetic wimps incapable of face to face debate; a real tough guy/gal who can use foul language hiding behind a computer with no one around to personally challenge them. What’s odd is why they would go to such an extent, it almost reads like a pre-formatted paper that is being issued to so-called deniers. Since I don’t know who wrote it I can’t conclude for sure, however it certainly has all the telltale signs of the social justice mob that has now moved clearly into a fascist modus operandi. That they run around accusing others of being Nazis and/or fascists while actually practicing fascistic Alinksky-esqe behavior in a clear demonstration of both their intolerance and irrationality. The fact you receive such viscious, hyperbolic, diatribe means you’re clearly making a difference. So, carry on!

  35. Rob Mitchell says:

    Hi Dr. Spencer,

    Your “fan” represents what I like to call the entire global warming worshipping mentality. I happen to be a Tesla owner. I love the car and they have a Forum for Tesla owners to exchange comments. I am also a marine weather forecaster who has gone to Alaska and Tierra del Fuego to predict metocean conditions. Your “fan” letter encapsulates everything some of my fellow Tesla owners believe. Yes, “climate change” is a major topic there. And I happen to take the stance that climate goes through natural cycles. The Arctic has warmed before in the recent past (1920s-1940s) as our instrument record has shown. Whenever I point this out, I get the same type of responses as your favorite “fan” presented. It is truly amazing to me how far this global warming movement has gone. It has become a new age religion. And if you take shots at this religion with data, you subject yourself to the same treatment as what is given by the Radical Islamic Extremist crowd!

    • If they were so concerned about the environment, why would they buy a car (Tesla) that has such a negative net impact on the environment? I’m not implying it’s worse than a gasoline-powered car, cradle-to-grave, but it questionable whether it’s significantly better.

      • lokenbr says:

        Depends on what your generating source is I suppose. A friend who is a Tesla owner pointed out to me that the reason he owns a Tesla, aside from various purchase incentives, is fuel cost savings. He doesn’t care much about emissions. But also pointed out that even if your generating source is coal, the harmful emmisions are typically far away from cities (unlike many car engines).

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Well, I for one did not buy the Tesla because of the environment. I bought it because it is a cool car. This is something I am trying to get across to my fellow Tesla owners. Not all Tesla owners are greenie weenies. I think it is pretty well split down the middle 50/50 on who buys the car. Some think it is a mission to get everybody to buy a battery electric vehicle (BEV) to save the planet. The other half are like me. They buy it because quoting Matthew McConaughey, “I just like it.” I am trying to convince Tesla folks to get off this global warming bandwagon. Unfortunately, Elon Musk has bought hook, line, and sinker into the global warming hysteria. He may have a business interest for doing so, but I think he is a true believer. He is a very smart guy. And if he ever got the opportunity to correspond with the likes of you Dr. Spencer, or Dr. Christy, or Dr. Lindzen, or Dr. Happer, who I hope Trump chooses as his science advisor, I think Musk will get off the global warming bandwagon and just focus on producing a great car for the general public.

        Thank you for all the great work you and Dr. Christy have done. I always am so eager to find out what the latest global mean temperature anomaly is at the end of each month!

  36. john sawruk says:

    As for your “fan mail”, has that moron considered what if HE is wrong? Do we kill millions of people because of unneccessarily high energy costs? Do we watch our country squander the ONE economic advantage we hold (abundant, affordable energy)in the increasingly competetive global economy? The way this moron speaks states volumes about how intelligent he is. Keep telling the truth Roy.

    • TedM says:

      Well said John.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Do we kill millions of people because of unneccessarily high energy costs?’

      No

      • Bart says:

        Yes. Estimated 2 million people per year. Would include a link, but it seems the site filter will not allow it.

      • Bart says:

        Do a search on “energy poverty”.

        • Nate says:

          What i found inficates it is related to lack of access to energy in poor regions lacking infrastructure. Not clear to me this at all correlates to ‘unneccesarily high energy costs’. Wouldnt off grid energy be helpful in these cases?

          • Bart says:

            Infrastructure costs money, i.e., resources that are in short supply. The higher the cost of providing that infrastructure, the less it penetrates.

            Intermittent, unreliable, high cost energy is a prescription for continued energy poverty.

          • Nate says:

            If my town were far from the grid in Nigeria, I think solar would be a great opportunity to have energy where there was none before.

          • Bart says:

            So, a privileged few get pittances of intermittent power during daylight hours. Forget the rainy season, or the winter months when the Harmattan Winds blow, and coat the panels with dust.

            Nigeria could provide everyone with reliable, continuous power at much less overall cost with fossil fuel powered plants.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Nigeria could provide everyone with reliable, continuous power at much less overall cost with fossil fuel powered plants.”

            Prove it.

            Cell phones leapfrogged land lines in Africa, because the latter has burdensome infrastructure and bureaucracy. It is the same with individual or community solar.

          • Nate says:

            Im beginning to think some solar panels fell on Bart and he’s still holding a grudge.

  37. joletaxi says:

    arf

    là, Mr. Spencer est rhabillé pour l’hiver

    • Bindidon says:

      A mon avis, il vaut mieux eviter les accents et autres cedilles quand on commente sur certains blogs amerloques…

  38. Ian brown says:

    Hello from over the pond. We have the same problem in the UK. .Climate change is not to be challenged.or should I say the cause is not.my problem with this is if the science is settled why the abuse and name calling . At 70 years of age and living in a sparsly populated area of the UK.i have fished and walked all over the UK since I was 8 years of age . I can honestly say apart from a few mild winters and spells of wet autumn weather nothing has changed in my lifetime.the grass the trees the animals the birds and insects are all the same as they were back in the fifty’s.i also fish in the North sea and find any sea level rise to be that slow if no one had told us we would never have noticed .No one likes to be told they are wrong .But we need to be proved wrong.its reminds me of something my dad said .Be carefully which soccer team you pick to support because you have got them for life.reminds me of politics and religion I have met people in Cuba south America Africa Indonesia the middle East and most of Europe . and when I ask about the climate they say very little base changed. I suppose like life it’s self time tell who is right or wrong regards. Ian

    • Carbon500 says:

      Agreed entirely, Ian. Like you, I’m a UK resident. I’m 68 years old, and have always been resident here. To suggest that the British climate has changed is nonsense. We’ve always had variable seasonal weather – hot summers, wet summers, cold winters, warm winters, dry winters and gales.
      ‘The Weather of Britain’ by meteorologist Robin Stirling makes for fascinating reading – recommended!

      • David Appell says:

        Carbon500 says:
        “Im 68 years old, and have always been resident here. To suggest that the British climate has changed is nonsense.”

        Well, the Hadley Central Temperature has warmed by 1.0 C in the last 68 years.

        data:
        http://tinyurl.com/5uh6eph

        • Carbon500 says:

          David Appell: Thank you for your comment. The question for me is – does temperature define climate? And what exactly is climate?
          Here’s how I see it.
          The Kӧppen classification of climate was devised by a German climatologist, Wladimir Kӧppen (1846-1940). According to texts Ive read, it has been the best known and most used climate classification system for decades, and describes the UK for example as having a humid middle latitude, mild winter or Marine West Coast (Cfb) type of climate.
          What the Cfb coding means is that the average temperature of the coldest month is under 18⁰C and above -3⁰C.
          No month is above 22⁰C, and at least four are over 10⁰C.
          A wide range of temperatures indeed!
          Thus it was in 2016, and also back in 1659 as seen for example in the Central England Temperature Record (CET), the worlds oldest temperature record.
          All this variation has always been seen regardless of the small increase in concentration of the trace gas over which so much fuss has been made, and the fractional (allegedly global) variations in average temperature which have been attributed to it.
          Its now 2017. Which country has changed has changed its climate as defined by the Kppen classification?

          • Carbon500 says:

            My apologies for the missing apostrophes – the lesson here is: following pasting from a Word document draft, check for items which have disappeared in the electronic fog en route!

          • barry says:

            Not sure what you’re arguing here, Carbon.

            Than diurnal and interannual variability means there is no such thing as climate change?

            Well, we already know that’s not true. Despite the large swings in temps etc at given locations over short time periods, we can still pinpoint Winter and Summer (two different climate states within a year) just by using the weather stats and nothing else.

            The distribution may be wide, but if the climate changes, the distribution does, too. It doesn’t necessarily get small or non-existent. There are still record cold days set in various places around the globe. But each year anywhere between twice as many to ten times as many hot records get set at given locations.

            Record-breaking hot days outnumber record-breaking cold ones because the global surface has warmed. The swings may be as wide, but they don’t go as cold nearly as often, and reach higher more often.

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: thank you for your comment. Put another way, the point I’m making is that the obsession with a claimed global average temperature is to me totally inadequate in terms of what’s actually going on. I’ve made the point that from a purely subjective point of view, the British climate hasn’t changed during my 68 years of life. Let it be clear that I’m not a climatologist of any stripe. Hence, I’ve had to read and sift material on the global warming issue. Comments made by meteorologist Williams James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001) are in my view relevant here. On p186 he comments that the range of extreme temperatures for January during the period 1772-1821 compared with 1946-95 is virtually unchanged, but a large shift in the median temperature (half the population lie above it, and half below) is seen. He goes on to comment that the changes affecting winter temperatures in the British Isles over the last 200 years or so are a matter of a shift in weather patterns rather than a significant warming of the northern hemisphere. This is why I commented on the Kppen classification, and the stress it lays on a given range of temperatures being relevant in describing climate.

          • barry says:

            I agree that the global average does not circumscribe what goes on in one location or even one country or another.

            Daily and seasonal weather changes will continue if the global average temperature changes. Winter will still be cooler than Summer, one day will be cooler/warmer than the next, cloudiness will vary. Rain will sometimes fall and sometimes won’t, floods and droughts will come and go. As long as there is a moon there will always be tides.

            The Koppen climate classification system is modulated by precipitation (seasonal averages) and temperature (range), and is ultimately based on the relationship between climate and vegetation. For the last 10,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age, world climate zones have been very stable.

            We know from geological surveys that climate, even under the Koppen classification, has changed significantly in given locations. At the bottom of the last ice age the Northern half of the US and Europe was under ice sheets hundreds of kilometers thick. The global sea level was 100 meters lower. The global average temperature was 5 to 6C lower.

            Even then that difference to today was not uniform. The poles were cooler by 10 to 12C, while at the equator the average temperature was 2 to 3C cooler.

            But that difference had profound effects on the UK and most other places. Were we to experience that kind of change over a couple of centuries it would devastate most of the world’s civilizations. Agricultural zones would disappear in England, moving south thousands of kilometers. The Northern UK would depopulate (how many Scots would be happy to live on an ice sheet?). The rice paddies along the Mekong Delta that feed millions of people would disappear.

            Were the globe to warm by 5-6C in a couple of centuries, that would likewise ravage civilizations – which depend on stable agriculture and water resources. Over thousands of years this is a lot more manageable. The future rate is more crucial than the absolute change.

            So far the globe has warmed by about 1C since 1900. While weather patterns have changed it is barely noticeable on your skin in most places. Winter is still cold, Summer warm, rain sometimes falls and doesn’t floods and drought still occur. The distribution is very similar to 100 years ago, but changes have been measured.

            It took 5000 years for the globe to warm 5C (the lower estimate) out of the coldest depths of the last ice age. That’s an average rate of 0.001C per year. You would not notice such a change in your lifetime.

            The rate since 1900 is 0.008C per year, nearly ten times faster. Even at that rate you might not notice much change in a hundred years – depending where you live. Alsakans have noticed changes in their weather. Many living at the edge of Arctic sea ice have seen a profound change in summer. September Arctic sea ice cover (the month of lowest sea ice concentration) has reduced by 40% across the Arctic since 1979.

            The rate of global warming is expected increase if CO2 emissions increase at the rate they have in that time. Since 1950, the rate has been 0.018C per year, twice as fast as the rate for the whole century.

            If the globe warms by 3C by 2100 (relative to 1900), that’s half the change in 200 years that the globe experienced in 5000. That’s a rate of 0.015C per year. The globe has already warmed faster since 1950.

            To go back to the Koppen classification system, has there been any changes detected under that regime?

            There is at least one research paper I know of that measured changes under that classification system, finding that just over 5% of the earth’s land climate zones had moved from one classification to another from 1950 to 2010.

            http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487

            If warming continues as expected, that number would grow. Equatorial climates would not change much (rising sea levels would have an impact on societies by the sea), but zones at higher latitudes would.

            If the mainstream research is right, changes in local weather patterns and climate would be apparent to older adults by 2050.

            One of the things that makes the issue difficult to come to grips with is that the change so far has not been clear on the ground, for individuals like you and I. I’m 49. The weather doesn’t seem much different to me, either, since I was a lad. But I know to be wary of the age-old blitheness – if it isn’t happening to me, it’s not happening at all.

            My grandfather smoked until a ripe old age. I just know there’s no harm in smoking. So I smoke, too. Medical advice on this is a hoax…

          • Barry the artic sea ice extent just had record growth in the month of September last year since sattelite records begin in 1978. Yes the earth has warmed some since the year 1900. Yes co2 does cause global warming. Yes climate does vary on a global scale depending on where you live. The warming that was experienced in Alaska for example is caused by major changes in the jet stream pattern from pressure differentials and air currents going in opposite directions steering certain weather to places it usually is not seen as often due to a weakening of the magnetosphere due to more galactic cosmic rays penetrating the earths magnetosphere causing it to weaken substantially. Weaker magnetosphere doesn’t just mean pressure differentials and changes in air currents that affect global weather patterns but also because more galactic cosmic rays penetrate the earths magnetosphere causing it to weaken causing more galactic cosmic rays to form more water molecules which form into condensation cloud nuclei causing more vapor and clouds therefore more snow, tornadoe, rain, floods, hail etc on a record event in places that have never been seen before. Man produced Co2 from fossil fuels only has a residence time in the atmosphere of 6-8 months before absorbed by the plants therefore has a minimal affect on climate resulting in an exteremely low climate sensitivity of about 0.03 C per century not the catostrophic 5C in 200 years you were going on about. That were to only happen if co2 was the main factor of the ghg affect and stayed in the atmosphere and remained there permenantly until the end of time! Fossil fuels from man made sources only have another 100 years to go before all is said and done and even if fossil fuels were to keep being admitted in atmosphere it would be on the order of thousands of years before we see a real noticible affect on the climate from man kinds co2 emissions. That is IF we assume fossil fuels were to keep going and we never switched to another energy source that is cleaner such as solar or wind power in the next 100 years. Other then that we are dealing with something totally worse in the foreseen horizon that we are not being told by the government about. A Maunder class minimum either like the 1800s or 1600s. We should know by 2020 at the earliest how bad this once in a 200 year solar min is going to be. Get ready for your crops to be frozen. Food prices will increase significantly! You will have to grow your own food because there will be none in the market when the government puts in a state of the police lockdown! You will be stuck in your house not able to move since they will ban all air transportation! I suggest moving further south where the least of the affects will be felt! These wacky weather patterns both warm and cold are only the the tip of the ice berg and are only going to get much worse in the coming years! Wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a 50 degree drop in temp in just 15 minutes here in The US! You will need to work together to overcome this! Do more research prepare and you will be fine! I believe in you all!

          • Carbon500 says:

            Thanks for your very interesting reply and comment re. the Koppen classification related study in Nature. My server won’t open the ink, so Google it will be!

          • barry says:

            Hi CC4R,

            Barry the artic sea ice extent just had record growth in the month of September last year since sattelite records begin in 1978.

            The growth was rapid, but 1999 had a faster growth from minimum to the end of September (I didn’t check any years before then).

            Rapid growth is more likely if the minimum is very low. 2016 had the 2nd lowest minimum on record.

            Despite the rapid growth during September after minimum, Arctic sea ice has been almost constantly at record lows for a given day of the year since October 22nd 2016.

            The warming that was experienced in Alaska for example is caused by major changes in the jet stream pattern from pressure differentials and air currents going in opposite directions steering certain weather to places it usually is not seen as often due to a weakening of the magnetosphere due to more galactic cosmic rays penetrating the earths magnetosphere causing it to weaken substantially.

            While the effects of GCR on climate is an active area of research, by far the preponderence of research indicates little to no effect on climate (ie, Svensmark is an outlier).

            Research papers on GCR, clouds and climate – list of published studies

            CERN has been running empirical experiments on GCRs and cloud-seeding regarding climate. Here’s the latest results:

            …the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

            http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global%20atmospheric%20particle%20formation.pdf

            If there is an ocean fluctuation responsible for recent Alaskan temps near the Arctic, it does not appear to have occurred in the past 100 years or so.

            Northern Alaska temperature since 1925

            The enhanced warming around the Arctic is not limited to Alaska. The whole region has been warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe since the 1950s. This is why Alaskans (especially near the Arctic end of the state) have noticed the effects of long-term changes while others in lower latitudes not so much.

          • Barry you claim:

            The growth was rapid, but 1999 had a faster growth from minimum to the end of September (I didnt check any years before then).

            Where is your evidence you used to come to this conclusion. Please provide links to every claim you make.

            Your second claim is that there are plenty of studies that simply dont back up the theory that GCR are a main controller in climate change. Why are you using consensus to back up your claim. Consensus based on what other people conclude isnt true science. You need to forget about other people and test the claim your self to see if it really supports what you are trying to prove to be true that is real science! Real graphs have shown that vapor and clouds have increased dramatically over the past few years across the planet. Why is this? Is it because of a warming planet like most scientists claim. Naaa despite the uptick in solar temps caused by a record breaking El Nio and a peak heating of solar cycle 24 which marks the end of this warming period for the next at least 200 years there has been no SIGNIFICANT increase in global temps for the past few years. What about geoengineering? Couldnt that be why all those clouds have increased by 25% globally in just a few year time span. Naaaaa genetic engineering is simply another billion dollar hoax just like CAGW! That white fluffy stuff that comes out of planes arent chemtrails but simply feul exhaust from the plane decreasing in latitude. Its just like the stuff that comes out of our tale pipes of our vehicles on a cold day. Water vapor. Where did that water vapor come from you ask? Hmmmmm maybe instead of rain causing rivers and oceans to form some gigantic dinosaur farted and so much water came out of its ass that thats where all the extra water came from! WRONG! Unlike co2 that has been buried in the ground for 1000s of years now at least by the rotting of fossilized rocks and bones water doesnt come from there. Its called the water cycle. Its that same water that has been vaporized to form feul to keep the plane running the only reason it comes out white is because the planes are so high up that at that high altitude water freezes and forms frozen ice crystals. Its that same water just putting it back into the air for it too once again fall back as precipitation drinking by us pissed out our holes and developed oceans and other body of waters!

          • barry says:

            We should know by 2020 at the earliest how bad this once in a 200 year solar min is going to be.

            Indeed, CC4R? Should temps not drop precipitously, I wonder if that will cause any shift in your position.

            We’ve had predictions (from skeptics) of imminent global cooling for the last 10 years. None of them have panned out, but we keep hearing it. Reckon you’ll give up if by 2020 it hasn’t happened?

          • “Weve had predictions (from skeptics) of imminent global cooling for the last 10 years.”

            barry, let’s get one thing straight, climate science isn’t exact and it never will be. Sure skeptics may make a few wrong predictions here and there. But unlike the alarmists skeptics haven’t changed there overall tactic that the earth is indeed headed into a little ice age to the earth to anything else have we? Yes there is no exact year. Yes we may be off by a few years but one things for certain. It’s going to happen. That is what history tells us! We use real raw temperature data based off actual readings to make our predictions we don’t just predict into the future and assume something is going to happen based on false science that has been proven to be wrong numerous times now have we? Alastmists on the other hand ASSUME it will because they ASSUME there science is right and ASSUME that this is what’s really causing our climate to change. They ASSUME in the 1970s that a little ice age is upon us and by 1998 there will be major food riots due to crop losses! They ASSUME that the snow would be a thing of the past. They ASSUME that the artic ice caps will be completely gone by a certain year all based on false science that doesn’t go with what reality is telling them and that’s not how science works. You don’t ASSUME! You never ASSUME. You don’t assume that it is going to rain today just because it’s cloudy! You don’t ASSUME that a hurricane is heading in our direction even though it just developed and is a million miles a way and hasn’t even been investigated by hurricane hunters yet. Assuming is not science! Looking at real observations and what history tells us and making conclusions about something based off of what has been happening all along and what real data and reality is telling us is real science!

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            Each of the last 3 solar cycles has been weaker than the previous. Here’s a graph that shows it.

            Graph

            If the sun has a major influence (whether directly or via GCR), then we should expect to see cooler temps over each cycle.

            Here are the cycle periods, followed by the average temp during those cycles from lower tropospheric data UAH6.0:

            1987-1997: -0.05

            1998-2009: 0.13

            2010-2016: 0.21

            The last cycle is incomplete. That means we’re leaving out the cooler half of the cycle past the peak. But it’s also the weakest cycle in a hundred years.

            What is clear is that temps have been rising while the solar cycles have become progressively weaker. This has been the case since the 1960s.

            The sun, directly or indirectly, does not appear to be a primary contributor to global temps.

            What about Arctic temps?

            1987-1997: -0.19

            1998-2009: 0.25

            2010-2016: 0.44

          • Barry, the Suns energy output going downward while temperatures are still warming is nothing unusual when one seems to notice that decreases in solar activity after every 206 year warming cycle caused by the Suns increase in energy output actually aren’t happening the same time simply because like co2 lags behind temperature solar energy output also lags temperature. To specify this next time you cook food in the microwave and take it out of the microwave what do you notice? You notice that the food is still cooking (sizzling) for a brief momen even after the microwaves that were warming it up have been eliminated all together. Well same thing with our sun. Although the Suns energy output has been decreasing since 1958 temperatures still increased because the affect from the sun hasn’t been felt yet by surface observations and is still warming until 1998 which led up to a 19 year hiatus with no significant increase in global temps for the past 19 years. Well I hope you enjoyed the warming while it last because from here it’s all downhill!

          • barry says:

            Out of curiosity I checked the trend for Arctic temps since 1979 using the UAH6.0 dataset – the dataset with the lowest global temp trend and the lowest Arctic trend of all the data sets.

            The Arctic has warmed by about 1C since 1979. More than twice as fast as the rest of the globe. Other data sets have the warming similar or 3 times faster than the rest of the globe.

            Northern Alaskans have noticed the change.

          • Barry, like the rest of the world the artic has been warming for the past few decades since the sattelite era due to a natural increase in the natural 200 year global warming bicentennial cycle caused by the sun but because the artic is at a much higher altitude and is a lot colder more often then the rest of the northern hemisphere the warming is more noticible. The Antarctic is experiencing record ice growth because the Southern Hemisphere cools before the northern hemisphere cools leading up to every grand solar minimum. So while the Antarctic is cooling the artic is getting hotter because the northern hemisphere is still being affected by the remains of the warming from the 206 year bincentinial cycle. Also a more powerful sun causes ozone to decrease which protects the artic from dangerous solar radiation. Because the hole in the ozone layer is getting bigger more rays are penetrating the artic which also causes the artic to warm even faster then the rest of the earth even with out the lag of the Southern Hemisphere cooling.

          • barry says:

            Suns increase in energy output actually arent happening the same time simply because like co2 lags behind temperature solar energy output also lags temperature. To specify this…

            Could you specify this by giving a time lag in years? I will apply the lag time and redo the calcs.

          • Again you need to understand climate science isn’t perfect. You can only be so specific before being too specific. One of the comments I wrote talks about this. I suggest you read it.

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            A strange thing has happened with the time stamps. You managed to post a reply after I’d posted mine, but it appears before mine. The timestamps are out of order.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/fan-mail/#comment-238717

            The time stamp on your reply there is later than my post that comes after it. How did that happen?

          • Barry? your talking about technology. We are talking climate science. Climate science and technology are two totally different things. If your trying to relate that with the scenario I made about the lagging affects on solar induced climate change with actual measured surface properties both running opposite directions then I suggest you stay on climate science.

          • barry says:

            CC4R, if you can’t say what the lag is, then we can’t test what you’re saying. How about a ball-park figure?

          • Again you need to understand climate science isnt perfect. You can only be so specific before being too specific. One of the comments I wrote talks about this. I suggest you read it.

          • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

            As you can see by the chart when we had a Maunder Minimum beginning in 1645 the Suns energy has already began its decline just 45 years later after the peak solar heating occurred in 1600 of the correlated 200 year solar cycle.

          • barry says:

            Oh, you actually give a figure. It was late and I didn’t see it.

            Although the Suns energy output has been decreasing since 1958 temperatures still increased because the affect from the sun hasnt been felt yet by surface observations and is still warming until 1998 which led up to a 19 year hiatus with no significant increase in global temps for the past 19 years. Well I hope you enjoyed the warming while it last because from here its all downhill!

            Solar decrease since 1958 not felt on the ground until 1998. 40-year lag.

            With a record of sunspots starting in the 1700s, we can test the lag on a different part of the series and see how things turned out.

            We have declining solar cycles for the period 1838 to 1907 (peak to peak), similar to the period 1956 to present. Here’s how it looks.

            Graph

            If solar is a primary factor, we should expect surface temperatures to decrease 40 years after the highest solar cycle in 1838 (1878), and conclude the cooling trend 40 years after 1907 (1947).

            Here are plots of surface temps for the period 1878-1947.

            BEST land-only

            Had4 land and ocean

            With a 40 year lag, global surface temps do not alias the trajectory of declining solar cycles.

            Going back this far in time also reduces the CO2 effect. The rise in the early 20th century was much slower than the rise in the last 50 years.

            Specifically,

            CO2 increase from 1878 to 1947 was 20ppm.
            CO2 increase from 1957 to 2016 was 90ppm.

            So we can say that CO2 played a small role for our period of interest. And yet still temperatures rose when they should have cooled in line with declining solar cycles (accounting 40-yr lag).

            Trends in temps for the 60 yr period are statistically significant.

            Berkley land – temp rise of 0.63C (0.60 – 0.66) over the period.
            Had4 global – temp rise of 0.27C (0.25 – 0.29) over the period.

          • Barry, you are thinking of the 100 year cintinial cycle not the 200 year bicentennial cycle which is what I was referring to. The longer the solar cycle the longer the lag. 1958 to 1998 is a 40 year lag caused by a 200 year bicentennial cycle which easily over powers a 100 year cycle by 100%. Therefore the lag is a lot smaller and the corelltion with global temperatures is a lot less noticible then a much longer stronger more powerful solar cycle

          • Correction: What I was actually referring to may have been the 400 year solar cycle cause it’s correlated lag time matches the best with the current one we are going into.

          • “Oh, you actually give a figure. It was late and I didnt see it.”

            Barry you saying it was late but you didn’t see it is another way of saying I saw it but I just chose not to read it because I don’t agree with the science it explains. It’s equivalent to and elementary school teacher asking one of there kids if they did there homework and they say “oh sorry, you know what mr. So and so by the time I realized I had homework it was too late because I had to go to bed and I was tired so I chose not to do it even though I saw you write it up on the board earlier.”

          • barry says:

            Again you need to understand climate science isnt perfect. You can only be so specific before being too specific.

            Science requires that a theory/hypothesis has to be falsifiable. If we can’t test it, no claim can be made.

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/fan-mail/#comment-238734

            My comment had nothing to with the issues we are exploring.

            Do you have moderator powers here? That would explain the weird time-stamping, and your later replies to my comments being inserted between earlier posts.

          • barry says:

            CC4R, the lag time you are proposing seems to be elastic.

            Could you specify this so that we can test something?

            The declining cycle 1878 to 1947 is 60 years long, peak to peak. The declining solar cycle 1956 – 2014 is 59 years long, peak to peak.

            The period length is a near perfect match. The solar periods compared have a very similar trajectory and length.

            If there is a difference in lag between the two periods, it must come from something in the Earth’s response, not the sun.

            I’ve been using my brain all this time, testing whatever you posit.

            Perhaps you could do the same.

            Using data readily available, please show the long-term relationship between solar and surface temps, and specify the different lags and when they happen. If you’re able, please describe the physical mechanisms that cause the lag, and how they operate differently to cause.

            Failing that, could you describe a way in which your hypothesis could be falsified? How would you put your own posits here to a rigorous scientific test?

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            From the research paper you cited:

            The cross-correlation analysis shows no statistically significant lag of the global temperature behind the sunspots

            No lag. Did you mean to cite research that disavows the posit you have made numerous times here?

            Further:

            After 1930 the correlation between the temperature and the solar and geomagnetic indices ceases to be significant (r 0.05). Most probably this is due to the sharp temperature trend in the last two decades as a result of the rising greenhouse forcing.

            This is not so different with the IPCC reports, which say that there was a small solar influence on temps in the first half of the 20th century, whereafter GHG warming becomes dominant.

            If you’re interested, there is a list of papers on the influence of GCR on clouds and global climate. By far the preponderance of opinion falls on GCR having little to no effect on long-term climate change in the modern era.

            Paper list

            Have a read of the alternate stuff. It’s good to get a balanced view.

          • Make sure you have read both of my links I posted above as well

          • Not just one which is what I think you did

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            Before moving on to the other paper, can you address the points I’ve already made about the Russian study? Particularly what I’ve quoted.

            And did you attend to my link? What do you think of the abstracts of those papers?

          • You mean the on that suggests there’s very little lag. Yeah I should have read that one more carefully.

          • That was wrong on my part

          • Link #1 claim: “Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.

            Barry I suggest you watch Evans svensmark the cloud mystery and see why this claim is total BS and also watch some of professed shavivs too which don’t just care about funding that most of those researches who provide those links do. Again it’s not what about the majority of scientists think. They you go using majority of consensus of other scientists to try to back your claims rather the relying on real data by real scientists or people who simply look at REAL observations and form REAL conclusions as
            To what’s really happening to our earths climate.

          • Also your links only go up to 2012. During and before 2012 there have been no cosmic ray and cloud increases. It’s only the past couple years since increase in cosmic rays and clouds have been going up dramatically.

            http://spaceweather.com/images2016/26feb16/cosmicrays.png?PHPSESSID=satparv5orcme2lnkt7fttfgi1

          • barry says:

            You’re going to write off the other papers summarily because of some supposed ‘funding’ argument, when you know nothing of the authors, who funds them, or their motivations for research?

            Sorry, “your guys are liars, mine are all champs” is not going to wash with me. I take your references seriously even if they are posted by hockeyschtick, who is hardly neutral (I’ve read the actual paper, not the blog post). If you’re not going to return the courtesy, there’s no point continuing.

          • You still haven’t explained to me why your websites only go up to 2012 when there was no increase in galactic cosmic rays then. Why is that?

          • Not one chart on google images and the studies on the link you provided goes past 2012. If this is the case How do we know what the galactic cosmic rays did in correlation with temperature from 2013 onward? I only see two charts that go past 2012 except they don’t go before 2012 so we can compare the data eye to eye with what happened before 2012 to after 2012 and don’t show the corellated cloud cover in comparison to it like a lot of the other charts and published papers do. Simple. It’s called hide the Incline! Lol

          • Barry, If you can find a chart/graph or published paper that shows BOTH cosmic rays and cloud cover combined (not just one or the other) going several years before 2012 to present time or at least 2015/2016 (bonus: 2017)I would love to see it. All I have to say is good luck finding one.

          • I’ve read the papers now answer my question

          • Dr evan svensmark himself explains that the reason the sattelites are getting different readings then reality is because they are recording a different part of the atmosphere then the clouds he is reffering to which form in the lower atmosphere not upper

            You can view his presentation here:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDjmSkpA3Y

          • This chart shows cloud and GCM index almost direct correlation. Why do some of the graphs on your published studies on the link you provided say otherwise?

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/ceres-modis-2010.gif

          • What’s the matter Barry? Scared to answer my questions? Giving up? This debate is far from over.

          • barry says:

            I have a life, CC4R. I haven’t been back to this blog for a couple of days.

            The reason the papers go up to 2012 is that the blog owner doesn’t maintain the lists very rigorously. He does occasional updates, but there are many paper lists. He’ll get round to it eventually. I sometimes post new papers there and he updates after a while.

            The most recent paper I know of is from CERN (2016) where they do empirical testing on atmospheric gases in a huge facility.

            …the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

            http://tinyurl.com/zqrkyk7

          • barry says:

            I’ve never given my own opinion on the subject.

            My opinion is that the connection between GCR, clouds and climate is not yet determined. It’s an active area of research. There may be a connection, but how large the influence, if there is one, and on what scale, is unknown.

          • barry says:

            Those papers that do find a correlation find it at different frequencies, find it with/without a lag, and are not consistent on the strength of GCR influence. All these papers are done by curve-fitting, not by empirical experimentation with aerosols and ions. Still there is much to suggest a connection – if we only read those papers.

            On the other hand there is a large body of papers that find little to no log-term influence of GCR on cloud cover/climate. Some find a small short-term (interannual) correlation, but not on climate scales.

            There is also direct experiments on cloud formation at CERN, which – so far- suggest little influence of GCR on cloud-seeding.

            If we only read those papers, we’d conclude that GCR has little effect on climate.

            I don’t favour any of these particularly – how could I?

            They you go using majority of consensus of other scientists to try to back your claims rather the relying on real data by real scientists or people who simply look at REAL observations and form REAL conclusions as
            To whats really happening to our earths climate.

            All the research you and I have cited are based on real data from real scientists.

            We appear to have come to different conclusions.

            I think the jury is out. On the wight of opinion, it appears that if there is an effect on climatic scales, it’s probably not large. BUT, it’s an active area of research and nothing is certain.

            Whereas you seem to be saying that it is certain that cosmic rays have a significant effect on climate, including the warming over the last century.

            Have I represented your view accurately?

          • Barry, the link you provided did come out recently and does show some visual aids. However, I still have yet to have seen any charts or line graphs if you will comparing the direct correlation between galactic cosmic rays entering our earths atmosphere and the amount of cloud cover these cosmic rays are providing as more and more enter our atmosphere from 2012 onward. Also you still haven’t explained to me why some of the charts online are different and show different readings then the next.

        • Carbon500 says:

          This letter regarding what was going on before the satellite era is interesting. It appeared on page 23 in the UKs Sunday Telegraph newspaper, on Tuesday October 1st 2013, and came from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84:
          Sir I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents in Europe had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age.
          The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.
          In connection with this letter, a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office is interesting. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon characteristic and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice distribution occurred almost each year following, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland took place (sic) at rather irregular intervals.
          Nothing is as simple and cut and dried as some would have us believe!

          • barry says:

            Well, your mileage may vary, but I prefer the work of scores of researchers that is up-to-date than a ltter in a newspaper from one researcher with fewer resources who seems to have retired a few decades ago.

            Arctic sea ice since 1953

            Source

            (You can see a short-term growth in sea ice from the mid-60s to the mid-70s)

            Arctic sea ice since 1900

            Source

            In recent years a treasure trove of sea ice edge maps from the 1890s to 1961 compiled by Danish researchers from boat surveys were made public. This is an example of the continually added data that informs long-term Arctic sea ice observations, and which was not available to Derek Blacker and his teams in the 70s/80s.

            The resources above have much more data to work with than did Blacker. I invite you to review them.

          • barry says:

            The World Glacier Service has the most extensive database on historical glacier changes around the world.

            http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf

            If you’re interested, click on the link to see a time series of glaciers from around the world and different regions. The bottom line is that 85% of the world’s glaciers have been receding over the 20th century.

            The great thing about the internet is that we have access to so much information. The trouble with the internet is that there is no filter to separate good information from bad. That requires patience and diligence.

          • It also requires intelligence which is what you don’t have. Not using that as an insult just please think before you comment buddy.

          • Carbon500, a ice age predicted in the 1970s was not the only wrong prediction made by these so called “scientists” in which they claim they didn’t know that co2 caused global warming then. I call bullshit on that one. In 2001 someone said that snow would soon be a thing in the past and children won’t know what snow is. Someone said during the 1970s global cooling scare that by 1998 food shortages will be dominant and everyone will starve and die and life will end as we know it? That didn’t happen. in 2008 algore said that the polar ice cap in the North Pole should be completely gone by 2013. Some scientist also said global warming will make hurricanes much worse and more frequent yet the past few years were one of the Quetist seasons ever recorded in history in the Atlantic basin! The iPCC said that global warming was going to eccelarate past 1998 at a catostrophic rate yet all 73 of their models predicted warming while there hasn’t been any for the past 19 years. In the 1930s they blamed yo yo for drought. In the 1800s they blamed witches for climate change. This climate propaganda has happened so many times in the past before and yet none of those claimed certified scientist predictions were no where near being accurate! What about the drought in California that those nit wits claim would get worse back in 2014. Oops! It’s raining and the California dam broke! Drought dead! Well I guess we can scratch that one off the list as well!

          • Carbon500, a ice age predicted in the 1970s was not the only wrong prediction made by these so called “scientists” in which they claim they didn’t know that co2 caused global warming then. I call bullshit on that one. In 2001 someone said that snow would soon be a thing in the past and children won’t know what snow is. Someone said during the 1970s global cooling scare that by 1998 food shortages will be dominant and everyone will starve and die and life will end as we know it? That didn’t happen. in 2008 algore said that the polar ice cap in the North Pole should be completely gone by 2013. Some scientist also said global warming will make hurricanes much worse and more frequent yet the past few years seasons ever recorded in history in the Atlantic basin! The iPCC said that global warming was going to eccelarate past 1998 at a catostrophic rate yet all 73 of their models predicted warming while there hasn’t been any for the past 19 years. In the 1930s they blamed yo yo for drought. In the 1800s they blamed witches for climate change. This climate propaganda has happened so many times in the past before and yet none of those claimed certified scientist predictions were no where near being accurate! What about the drought in California that those nit wits claim would get worse back in 2014. Oops! It’s raining and the California dam broke! Drought dead! Well I guess we can scratch that one off the list as well!

          • barry says:

            a ice age predicted in the 1970s was not the only wrong prediction made by these so called scientists in which they claim they didnt know that co2 caused global warming then

            Most studies in the 70s predicted warming from CO2 . Some predicted an ice age from orbital dynamics thousands of years ahead. A couple said it was difficult to tell if aerosol cooling would outweigh warming from CO2. A couple predicted cooling would win out.

            Some mainstream media latched on to the latter, which is why people today don’t realize that the weight of scientific opinion in the 70s was towards a warmer world from anthro CO2.

            Papers from the period were collated in a study to determine which view was more prolific in the science literature.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

            so called scientists in which they claim they didnt know that co2 caused global warming then

            The theory of CO2 warming was well-known by then. The science behind it predates the 20th century.

          • Barry, if there is something your not sure about why would you go off and try to scare people with it anyways by talking about it in the news in TIME magazines such as National Geographic. If I were a scientist and I thought the same thing and there are only a few other studies that agree with would be damn sure that what I’m saying supports the hypothesis that I am trying to convince people with it that it is true rather then outright lying to their faces and brainwashing them either way! That’s is if I cared for people and not funding from organizations like big oil and gobbling money from people’s carbon taxes. Please take a moment and think about what you just said. Not trying to be mean or come across rude but You have a Brain Barry I suggest you learn how use it right. Just trying to help you out there pal.

          • barry says:

            CC4R,

            From 1965 to 1979 there were 7 research papers predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming.

            Those are the statistics. My brain tells me to focus on that and not the news media to get a proper picture of where the science stood in those days.

            Is focusing on the media when talking about the science an intelligent way to proceed?

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: you comment ‘Well, your mileage may vary, but I prefer the work of scores of researchers that is up-to-date than a letter in a newspaper from one researcher with fewer resources who seems to have retired a few decades ago.’
            This is a dismissive comment on an important observation made by a professional meteorologist, who is pointing out climatic behaviour which is at variance with the notion that CO2 due to mankind’s activities is causing dangerous global warming.

          • barry says:

            Why is a letter in a newspaper from a researcher of significant importance compared with scores of researchers and tons more data in the decades since what he wrote about?

            I don’t get it. You want me to eschew more comprehensive knowledge in favour of knowledge from 4 decades ago?

            Why would I? Why would you do that?

            If I want to learn about cosmology, I’d pick up the latest textbook, not one written in the 1970s. Surely that is amply reasonable?

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: Your dismissive attitude of important past observations doesn’t alter the facts. If you review my comment, it was backed up by a look at the Icelandic Meteorological Office data from those days by myself. I wasn’t taking my information from a newspaper letter without checking as you infer. Such observations matter. Meteorologist William James Burroughs comments in his book ‘Climate Change’ that the Central England Temperature (CET) ‘confirms the exceptionally low temperatures of the 1690s and in particular the cold springs of this decade. Equally striking is the sudden warming from the 1690s to the 1730s. In less than forty years the conditions went from the depths of the little ice age to something comparable to the warmest decades of the twentieth century’.

          • barry says:

            Carbon,

            As there were no quotes or annotation to show what was the letter and what was your own words, I took it that most of the post was the letter.

            The letter talks about sea ice around Iceland. This area accounts for less than 5% of all Arctic sea ice over a period of 10 years. I do not question the author’s expertise for the period and region of his focus, only the relevance of such a narrow focus.

            It is not reasonable to extrapolate his observations of Icelandic sea ice over 10 years to the longer-term development of Arctic-wide sea ice over the longer term.

            Other parts of the Arctic see 10-year increase in sea ice at specific locations, but over the long-term basin wide sea ice has declined. I supplied the sources for those observations. But you seem not to be interested in those, only the comments of Blacker.

            Why?

            Similarly, the Central England Temperature record is about changes to temps over central England. This is not necessarily a proxy for global changes. And local variation is well-known to be greater than global. However, the Central England Temperature record shows a general warming over the 20th century to present as does global.

            Indeed, the last few decades are clearly the warmest for the whole period of the Central England Temperature record. You can see the temperature time series at the ling below:

            http://tinyurl.com/34vwtdx

          • Carbon500 says:

            Barry: you comment that the CET isn’t global. No, of course not, but it’s the best set of actual readings going back for centuries that we have. I have the record showing temperatures rather than the anomalies you link to. In 1659, the first reading is 8.9 deg.C. In 1686, we see 10.1 deg.C. Readings of just over 10.0 deg.C are not unusual, until a whole cluster from 1997 to 2009. During this time, from so-called pre- industrial era (before 1750), CO2 has gone up from 280ppm to the current value of just over 400. Where’s the dangerous warming given this increase in CO2? Look at Professor John R. Christy’s testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on February 2nd 2016. He shows graphs demonstrating the close agreement of UAH satellite and balloon temperatures, and also graphs comparing 102 model runs with actual observations. As you no doubt know, the models have, in Christy’s words, a ‘strong tendency to over-warm the atmosphere relative to actual observations.’ Underneath, balloon and satellite data sets from 1979 to 2015 show an increase of about 0.3 deg. C during the same period.. In closing, he comments: ‘In my testimony today I have given evidence that the bulk atmospheric temperature is measured well enough to demonstrate that our understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate is significantly inadequate to explain the climate since 1979.’ Dr. Roy Spencer in his book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ points out that the global average near-surface temperature has been estimated to be around 14 degrees C, while the satellite-measured lower atmospheric layer averages about minus 4 degrees. In closing, I’d like to offer comments from the book by William James Burroughs (Climate Change) I’ve referred to in earlier posts. He tells us (p53 and 55) that Arctic and Antarctic pack ice can fluctuate by several million square kilometres during the year, and on p149 mentions that it will be necessary to build up more extensive observations using satellites before jumping to conclusions about the significance of recent trends. As I’ve said earlier, I’m not a climatologist. However, my background is scientific, and I long ago learnt the need for caution and the need to consider all possibilities in the field I once worked in. Caution seems to be a quality lacking in some areas of ‘climate research’, which I won’t comment on here. You and I clearly have different views on certain aspects, but we’ve had a civilised discussion of some interesting points. In closing, and to get right back on topic, the appalling missive sent to Dr. Roy Spencer which triggered all these comments indicates the dangers of a closed mind unwilling to accept alternative points of view. The sheer vehemence of some when discussing the alleged dangerous man-made global warming (let’s not call it climate change!) is staggering.

          • barry says:

            Yes, totally agree that the filth in the email to Dr Spencer is desultory, and a consequence of people being entrenched in their views, among other things.

            The absolute temperature change for a day in Sydney (minimum to maximum temperature) is about 15C.

            The range for the whole globe over a year is about 3C.

            Temperature swings for a given location or region is large than global. The range of annual temps (ups and downs) for CET is 10 times greater than the annual temperature variation for the globe.

            In the CET record, it is warmer in the last 2 to 3 decades than for any 2 to 3 decades previous. In this way, the CET record is like the global record. But I would not assume any greater correlation for shorter periods.

            Now you have mentioned models. Dr Spencer has one view, there are others.

            All would agree, at the very least, that from about 2002 observations were lying in the very bottom of the model ensemble, and there apeared to be a divergence. But what there was doubt about was whether this was a climatic divergence or a coincidence of short-term processes that happened to depress temps for a while.

            The recent spike of the 2016 el Nino brought global temps back to the middle of the model ensembles. We’ll have to see how the next few years go.

  39. Bindidon says:

    That’s strange!

    Because in fact it’s the typical language of neofascists, perfectly matching their usual outfit: bomber jacket, army boots, bald skull, big swastika tattoo at the neck, SS tattoos on the fingers…

  40. CO2isLife says:

    Dr Spencer, if you even need a break, please feel free to repost any of my articles over at CO2isLife. I just finished this one that links to your site.

    Climate Science on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/a-tale-of-two-cities-cherry-picking-locations-to-manufacture-warming/

  41. Mike Flynn says:

    Ah, the Wonderful World of Warmism.

    Glassy eyed cultism at its finest. I support unfettered free speech (yes, including letting people know there’s a fire in a crowded theatre). So if I express the view that your “fan” might well fit the diagnostic picture of a person afflicted with delusional psychosis (similar to one Michael Mann, I’m merely practising what I preach.

    Maybe he (or she) might write to the President, the Pope, or the King of Spain, on the basis that they might be less arrogant, ignorant or stupid. I’m sure they’ll be just as impressed as Dr Spencer!

    Go for it, Fan! When you’ve figured out what happens when you prevent the climate from changing, do let me know. I enjoy a good laugh, and Warmists are a never ending source of amusement. Their ever more desperate and erratic flailings are diverting by virtue of their complete and utter pointlessness.

    Here’s a thought, Fan – reduce CO2 production, if you’re so terrified of the stuff. Stop breathing!

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Respiration is carbon neutral. You don’t create carbon, you just recycle it.

      (Denier Myth #1.)

      • D MacKenzie says:

        You exhale about 45,000 ppm CO2…I always thought it was Warmunist Myth #1

        • David Appell says:

          And where do you think that carbon comes from? Is your body manufacturing carbon atoms?

          • D MacKenzie says:

            From proteins,carbs,etc,in food. Your point being what, David? My point is that warmunists are often shocked at the 45000ppm or so level of CO2 in human exhaled breath, which might cause them to look into some actual numbers for a change, like inside buildings often being at 800 ppm, a level at which, for reasons they don’t know, but they are certain will turn the planet into a burning cinder, many despite having a ‘higher education’.

          • David Appell says:

            The point is, denier extraordinaire, that you body does not create carbon atoms.

            The carbon you exhale comes from the carbon you inhaled, and the carbon in the food you eat that was taken in by animals who eat plants or the plants themselves. You’re just recycling carbon.

            Respiration is (obviously) carbon neutral — atmo carbon hasn’t been building up for a few hundred million years since organisms started breathing oxygen.

            (Denier myth #1)

          • Well at least David has half a brain. Lol

      • Carbon500 says:

        Based on a world human population of about 2.1 billion in 2000, each exhaling 310 Kg of CO2 annually, I calculate that each year we as a species put 1.89 gigatonnes of the stuff into the atmosphere (and rising as the population increases). The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3000 gigatonnes, so our contribution is 0.063% of the total.
        Now convince me that this has no effect whatsoever. The more humans, the more CO2 gets generated.
        This is of course fun speculation with figures, and, yes, things are vastly more complicated than this in terms of the carbon cycle.
        But – if you believe that increasing CO2 is harming the Earth’s climate, then I suggest (tongue in cheek) that curbing the human population is the way to go, because more humans = more CO2!

        • AaronS says:

          Technically Burning fossil fuels does not create C either. It releases it from stored cellulose and algae. Only mega gravity like Stars create heavier elements

          • David Appell says:

            Burning carbon-based fuels releases carbon many, many millions of years earlier, and far faster, than nature would have emitted it via volcanic eruptions.

          • AaronS says:

            You mean the oceans? Or volcanos? Bc most carbon spikes are actually thought to be degassig of gas hydrates when ocean circulation changes.

  42. Jake says:

    Dr. Spencer, you continue to do good work because you’ve provided an outlet to this poor soul to unload whatever stresses he’s been experiencing of late. Lord knows he may have walked into a Walmart with a semi-automatic and then what?

  43. barry says:

    From someone who disagrees with your general conclusions, Dr Spencer – that kind of filth is unacceptable. I’m sorry you receive such nastiness.

  44. Juan Slayton says:

    The parade goes by and the dogs bark. You’re in the parade. : > )
    (Evidently animal control has the weekend off…)

  45. Thom says:

    Another member of the liberal basket of deplorables. Name calling disguised as activism. Whiney little keyboard hero.

  46. Mike says:

    “nor even why the ice ages occurred only in the northern hemisphere. ” So I was just in Torres Del Paine last year and couldn’t help but notice the 2500 ft granite spires that were formed by glaciers in Southern Chile. I guess that was just considered cold weather. Nice to see these hateful idiots going off their rockers because they have to face actual logic now, which of course they can’t do. So bring out the ad hominem attacks cause that’s all these really stupid people have now. Quite amusing actually. Also, to you lefty idiots, please keep ranting and rioting so that you guarantee the Dems lose even more seats in 2018. I didn’t vote for either candidate this time, but after watching you disgusting hateful morons I’m all in for Trump now. Also going to give money to defeat the rest of he idiots in 2018. Hope Soros can give you a job as a protester.

  47. Whoever wrote this shitty letter needs to die!

    To the person who wrote the letter:

    1. you litteraly proved nothing about how fossil fuels cause dangerous runaway global warming! Your first claim is that 6 billion people are on this planet. Omg what the fuck is that supposed to mean dumb cunt! Co2 makes up less then 1% of the total ghg affect of the total atmosphere! Did you know that? No because you are a fucking retarded dumb cunt you ugly know it all retarded fucking price of shit! where are your links where is all your fucking evidence you dibshit!

    2. You say that other greenhouse gasses are exerted from fossil fuels! The only fucking fossil fuels exerted from man kind is fucking co2 and mother fucking water vapor. Methane from fucking cows ass and cfcs from our fucking chlorofluorocarbons don’t do shit to the ozone layer because it is fucking shrinking! You are dumb uneducated douche bag who loves to insult people and don’t know shit! Keep your fucking opinions to your fucking self and do me a favor and rot the fuck in hell and get your bones eaten by the maggots of saton and stay in hell and have the devil torture you forever there and have a miserable after life. I hope you die soon you fucking deluted retarted peice of shit dick sucking puss licking shit eating jizz inhaling no good prick!

  48. And dr spencer I deeply apologize for the moron who insulted you. Keep up the awesome work! I guess that’s what happens when you deny the truth!

  49. And also to mr dumb fuck who wrote this letter do you seriously think that the ice age was only northern hemisphere! Omg! lol I was this close but aparently you are much dumber then you think! You are the dumbest fucking scag on the face of this earth! Debate me on twitter i dare you! I will fucking demolish your big fat ugly ass in a climate change debate! I hope you don’t cry because I may be way to smart for you and your puny rotten brain of yours can’t handle all that smartness! You may actually start crying to your mommy for comfort! Awwww so sad! hope you just realized you just embarrassed yourself on the entire fucking blog! Now we can all see how dumb and uneducated you are and laugh are fucking asses off! I hope you perish in the global cooling era and little ice age that’s about to set in! If your smart like me maybe you would do more research! But that is 99.9% unlikely you are too retarted dumb and lazy. Hmmmm. Figures

    • Chris Hanley says:

      Ooh look see, (fake) climate den1ers can be just as foul-mouthed as true believers.

      • Chris, if it means being angry to get my point across then being angry I shall. I could care less. BTW I am not a climate denier. Nor am I a FAKE climate denier. The climate has been changing without our help from our buddy fossil fuels for at least millions of years now. If I was a climate denier I wouldn’t know what to do with myself. You might want to think more before you make clueless comments. Just a little advice from an old pal! Cheers!

        • Chris Hanley says:

          Of course youre a fake, why are you pretending to be Prof Humlum?

          • Why are you pretending to be al gore? Also why are you not talking science? If you were a real CAGW alarmist you would be talking science that denies what I’m saying not calling me a fake climate denier and relating me to some other guy which is what you are doing. If you want to debate science with me I will be happy to do so. If you want to continue pulling out the name calling wild card feel free to do so. But I am just putting this out their if you want to continue wasting my time that is fine but you can count me out of this discussion. will not debate someone who doesn’t provide any support to provide their claims let alone is not even willing to talk real science and have a real scientific debate.

        • David Appell says:

          ClimateChange4realz says:
          “The climate has been changing without our help from our buddy fossil fuels for at least millions of years now.”

          a) where did you hear such a crazy thing???

          b) How could it possibly have changed in the past? I mean, come on….

  50. Wow! I’ve been mistaken again! Not only the dumbest fuck on this planet your the dumbest fuck in this whole entire fucking galaxy! You say describe a time when co2 was much higher related with temperatures! Here’s your kindergarten letters of the alphabet homework especially made for dumb fags like you much dumber then there actual age unless that is you really are 5 years old. Well any things possible. Lol:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

    • David Appell says:

      ClimateChange4realz says:
      “You say describe a time when co2 was much higher related with temperatures!”

      When CO2 was much higher in the past:

      1) The Sun was much weaker — its irradiance is increasing by about 1% per 110 Myrs. So during the Ordovician-Silurian ice age, 440 Myrs ago, the Earth received 4% less solar insolation, a whopping 55 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere.

      2) The continents were in different positions, which means the Earth’s albedo was different, as were ocean currents, cloud distribution, and more.

      So the simple idea that much higher CO2 in the past means CO2 doesn’t cause warming is…simpleminded, and completely wrong.

      • And where is your source of evidence to help support such a cherry picked claim?

        • The link that I provided doesn’t go back millions of years ago genius

          • Try finding a source or image on the internet that says that solar irradiance measurements go back millions of years ago. I dare you!

          • Measurements for solar iridiance only goes back 400 years ago it says it right there in black and white nice try David!

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

          • David Appell says:

            The rate of change I quoted comes from stellar astrophysics, not observed TSI.

          • Physics isn’t always the answer David

          • Besides do you have any links supporting that claim as well?

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “Physics isnt always the answer David”

            Yes, it is — by definition.

            Do you have evidence these solar insolation changes are wrong? Or do you not want to believe the work of decades of astrophysicists only because you don’t like the answer?

            Sorry, but you don’t get to pick and choose your physics.

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “Besides do you have any links supporting that claim as well?”

            Sure — look in Pierrehumbert’s textbook, chapter 1, and references contained therein.

            I’m sure there are copious links to this result, if you care enough to spend a minute or two googling.

          • http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

            David please read global warming section 1.8 or 1.9. It states that co2 is a very important greenhouse gas and is long lasting! Wrong! More propaganda to mislead the public. Co2 is not long lasting at all. In fact before it is absorbed by the plants it’s residence time in the Atomosphere is only a 6-8 month time frame. “Co2 is a very important ghg” wrong again! At any given time 78-92% of the total ghg affect is water vapor and cloud. Hmmmm what’s that white fluffy stuff in the sky? That’s right it is clouds and yes you can see it unlike co2 so therefor it plays I more important role then co2 right off the bag! Co2 at any given time that is “total” man made and natural co2 is only 9-18% of the total ghg affect at any given time that dwarfs mans
            Contribution of only 2.8% of total co2. If all ghgs are accounted for man made co2 makes up no more then 1% of the total ghg affect at most! Yes mans co2 does cause a tad of warming. Yes mans co2 does have a ghg affect! Yes I am part of the 97% of scientists who agree that mans co2 plays a role in climate change just the idea of it being the main control knob come on! I smell an agenda that your part of! I did my research you do yours! The science is settled PERIOD! I’m done ranting!

          • By the way David I still haven’t found the claim you are ranting on about. Unless I am absurdly reading the wrong link (the one I posted above) you may want to actually post the link your trying to use to prove your point and tell me the exact page or location it is on if it is some 500 page textbook please. If you cannot do that you are litteraly the laziest dumbest person on this planet. The choice is yours. Cheers.

            Signed ClimateChange4realz

          • Still no reply David? Hmmm I guess words really do speak! Lol

          • What’s the matter? Did your mommy ban you from using technology because you threw away her car keys again?

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “David please read global warming section 1.8 or 1.9. It states that co2 is a very important greenhouse gas and is long lasting! Wrong! More propaganda to mislead the public. Co2 is not long lasting at all. In fact before it is absorbed by the plants its residence time in the Atomosphere is only a 6-8 month time frame.”

            You are confused.

            While the lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is several years, and that molecule perturbs the carbon cycle for more than 100,000 years.

            Because of our CO2 emissions today, atmospheric CO2 will be higher for ~100,000+ years. Essentially forever. Changing the climate for the entire time.

            You should read this nice little book, by a climatologist at the University of Chicago:

            “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
            http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html

          • David I am not going to waste my money on some stupid book full of propaganda by some fake scientist who wants to be rich and just cares about obtaining Money from big oil. I’d rather listen to a more educated scientist who knows the science and likes exposing the truth to people and could care less about funding from any oil or energy corporation but if you want to buy it then be my guest.

          • David my suggestion to you:

            Watch Murray Salbys lecture on co2 sensitivity that wa recorded summer of last year. In fact for your sake I think you should watch all his vids. The choice is yours my friend. Have fun and also for your sake I suggest you enjoy the last few years of your fake scientific agenda and try to obtain as much funding as possible before your global warming nonsense goes down the train. That’s just what I would do if I were you but you can do what your want. It’s your life your career not mine.

          • David Appell says:

            “Contribution of only 2.8% of total co2.”

            Questions:
            1) How much CO2 does man emit in a year?
            2) How much CO2 does nature emit in a year?
            3) How much CO2 does nature absorb in a year?
            4) How much CO2 is left in the atmosphere?

            You can’t look at sources without looking at sinks.

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “By the way David I still havent found the claim you are ranting on about.”

            The sun’s irradiance growth over time is a well known result from any beginning astronomy class. Start here:

            http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

            section 1.3, page 13, paragraph surrounding equation 1.1.

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “If you cannot do that you are litteraly the laziest dumbest person on this planet.”

            Resorting to ad homs is an admission of frustration and a losing argument.

            Don’t expect any more replies.

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “lol whatever Chum”

            I take that to mean “I see you have the science behind you, but I don’t want to admit it, so I’ll just fade away.”

  51. Keep up the great work dr spencer you are doing in excellent job continuing to put the truth out there! Unfortunately there are a lot of dumb fish in the sea!

  52. Al Hopfer says:

    To keep it short I’ve allowed the calculations to you. My calculation show the following and…

    The point is that the more we invest with foresight; the less we will regret in hindsight.

    Windmill or Windmills + Solar = same thing.

    To generate enough electricity to match US 2016 4,100B-Kw hours and increased for gasoline replacement AND to avoid battery back-up leading the US to being dependent on foreign Lithium….

    1.6 million windmill are required.
    US currently has ~50,000 installed
    US installed 5,000 last year. If install rate is increased by a factor of ten (10). That’s 32 years. Which its estimated a windmill’s service life is ~30 years.

    Oroville dam thingy, lucky lesson learned.

    AL

  53. bill says:

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste

  54. Chuck DeVore says:

    Reminds me of some of the fan mail I got when I was in the California State Assembly as one of the few conservatives in office. My family’s favorite was the one that started out, “You stupid, stupid man.”

  55. Lone Gunman says:

    Say, I wonder if that guy has as much sexual intercourse at home as he did in that Email??? Just saying………………..

  56. SocietalNorm says:

    I didn’t know that you kept in touch in Michael Mann.

  57. AaronS says:

    Mammals, corals, trees, even polar bears did fine last interglacial 125k yr ago when sea level was >6m higher than today.

    • barry says:

      Ah yes, that last interglacial when average global temperature rose 5 to 6C over 5000 years.

      It’s not the fact of climate change, which happens anyway, it’s the rate of change that is the concern.

      You can argue about the rate all you like, but at least get the premise correct.

      • Phil says:

        Hockey Stick busted, Karl et al. discredited, “Pause” reinstated, El Nino finished, tough times barry.

        • barry says:

          Strange, you mention my name but don’t discuss anything I said.

          The ‘pause’ is not reinstated. All global temp data sets currently have a positive slope since 1997/98. For the slope to go flat by year’s end, the annual anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.16 (UAH dataset). Cross your fingers, because that hasn’t happened since 1998. Not since 1993, to be precise.

        • barry says:

          Hockey Stick busted, Karl et al. discredited

          Well, that’s highly debatable. What are the odds we’d have a debate worth anyone else reading?

        • David Appell says:

          Phil: The hockey stick has been confirmed many times by now. Karl et al has also be confirmed (Hausfather et al, Science Advances, Jan 2017).

          But by all means don’t let these get in the way of your delusions.

      • AaronS says:

        Barry, it is true that is the time averaged rate from the ice cores, but do we have the resolution to say there were not centuries of 1.1 deg C warming during that transition? There were almost certainly single years of 0.8C deg warming associated with El Nino to la nina transitions, but u dont see those in the record. Point is you can not compare apples to oranges. We just went through the largest solar max in over 2000 yrs (when orbital parameters had not optimized climate yet). It is becoming abundantly clear that man made warming is exaggerated in IPCC models by: 1. the exclusion of indirect solar warming from cosmic rays influence on clouds and from: 2. the inclusion of an overestimated cloud albedo effect. These are Nature papers saying this.

        • barry says:

          Point is you can not compare apples to oranges.

          I ate the fruit you served. My point remains. It’s not the absolute difference but the rate that is the concern.

          • Rate aye? Hmmmmm. Let’s see here. Ghgs comprise of a whopping 1% of all the total gases in the atmosphere. 97% ghg water vapor. The other 2% hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, cfcs and ozone. Less then 1% of total ghg is co2. Water vapor combined with cloud albedo contributes to about 72-92% of the total ghg affect at any given time. Total Co2 makes up only 9-18% of the total ghg affect while mans co2 from the burning of fossil fuels makes up less then 3% of that. I don’t see any rate that shows that the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate. More alarmist drivel. Moving on.

          • Lewis says:

            Rate?

            Why would that be a concern? Is flooding of Miami or New Orleans better at a slower rate?

            Let’s be serious here. New Orleans flooded very well thank you. Dick Cheney said ‘don’t build it back’ a reasonable response to AGW but the snowflakes said no.

            So who is being unreasonable to rate?

            Lewis

          • barry says:

            Lewis, a 5C change in global temps over 5000 years is something manageable. If seas rise at the rate of a millimeter a year, for example, the erosion from storm surges and king tides is slow, we creep inland very slowly and the cost is stretched out. If it rises at a much greater rate the costs are squeezed into a smaller time frame and becomes less manageable.

            From the IPCC

            Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.

            As I said originally, you can argue about what the rate is or isn’t (and that’s what this sub-thread is drifting to), but at least characterise the issue accurately.

          • AaronS says:

            I do agree Rate of change can be significant to an ecosystems ability to migrate. Like seen in pollen records from ANDERSON POND TENNESSEE trees can migrate given time but climate can cause extimction like the cooling and ecosystem loss at the Hemphillian (4.5 million yrs ago), if plants and animals can not adjust bc conditions are outside the range they go extinct. So i get your point. However your rate argument has a huge assumption that there are not phases of negative or neutral warming that define the long term trend and that earth has high sensitivity to CO2. As a paleoclimatologist i do not feel comfortable creating a long term rate on such a small data set. Especially given the way the global temperature data keep changing which is screaming high uncertainty. I have empirical evidence that selecting data from the transition of a solar minimum in 1900 to the strongest solar max in more than 2kyr (prior to max orbital parameters) from 1950 to 2000 has biased the models. We dont understand the sun and the indirect impact on climate from clouds and the relationship with the magnetic field. The indirect warming from the sun is excluded from the entire range of existing IPCC climate models. Thus there might be warming in your trend that will go away as the sun calms down. Also the models seem to have overestimated the cloud albedo effect and this is currently under question from a lil boot leg lab called CERN. The deflation of the warming trend as natural climate cools off might even make a pesky hiatus in the data. This would force an ethical challenge for scientists to manipulate data or revise the models for at least certainty. Surely they would not do that? Where is Michael Crichton’s replacement to write this story, but actually this one isnt fiction so it will likely go down in history (unfortunately to the loss of credibility to the scientific method).

          • barry says:

            However your rate argument has a huge assumption that there are not phases of negative or neutral warming that define the long term trend and that earth has high sensitivity to CO2.

            It seemed the temporal context of your initial comment was thousands of years (quaternary interglacials). I responded within that context.

            While we have some evidence of large local changes over short periods (ie, Greenland), there is less evidence for abrupt changes globally over short periods. That doesn’t mean they haven’t happened, but, as you say, one cannot assume either way. However, with an absence of robust evidence of global rate changes analogous to the modern instrumental record of the last 100 years or so, I’m not sure how much I can say more than what I did.

          • barry says:

            Aaron,

            Also the models seem to have overestimated the cloud albedo effect and this is currently under question from a lil boot leg lab called CERN

            Latest research from CERN:

            …the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

            http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global%20atmospheric%20particle%20formation.pdf

          • AaronS says:

            Barry and Dave. You seem to be confused. The cloud albedo effect is the big negative (cooling) one from sulfate pollution. The thought is it masks warming from CO2 today and it is a major part of high sensitivitt scenarios. Cosmic rays are another dicrete issue all together. For “experts” im surprised you didnt know this.

          • David Appell says:

            The recent CERN results have been peer reviewed and published in a (very good) journal:

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            Your numbers are garbage…. but you also wrote:

            “I dont see any rate that shows that the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate.”

            The planet is heating up about 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial maximum about 21 Kyrs ago.

            When was the last time the surface was changing at this rate?

          • Bullshit! There are times in the past when the earth went through a 15C warming in just two years!

          • barry says:

            CC4R – if you get around to substantiating that comment, I believe you’ll find it refers to local changes (such as Greenland), not global.

          • You do realize not all climate change is global right?

          • David Appell says:

            Aaron wrote:
            “We dont understand the sun and the indirect impact on climate from clouds and the relationship with the magnetic field.”

            A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

            Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, Eimear M. Dunne et al, Science (27 Oct 2016).
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649

          • AaronS says:

            Dave,
            I am skeptical of any climate based model claim and do not consider a model conclusio, which is a hypothesis, as more significant than empirical data. There is the PNAS paper showing causation and svensmark papers plus updated talks that show correlation. Its the same story over and over. Models are easily biased. And i know many believe in model like i do the bigger picture of observations but the bias to uphold a model based position on climate is high. If u fund it it will grow… if u dont need it then it will go. And noone wants to lose their job… so somehow science has become this augmented world where a model somehow trumps empirical data. I am confident that history will absolutely laugh at the bias in data manipulation and modeling in modern climate pseudoscience.

            http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “There are times in the past when the earth went through a 15C warming in just two years!”

            When was that?

          • Okay maybe I was overexagerating a little but you get the idea.

          • Phil says:

            David Appell: “The planet is heating up about 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial maximum about 21 Kyrs ago.
            When was the last time the surface was changing at this rate?”

            If accurate thermometers had been around for the past 21 Kyrs to measure year-to-year changes I expect such detail would emerge.

            It’s a pity “Climategate” showed paleoclimatology to be so disreputable.

          • David Appell says:

            Phil says:
            “If accurate thermometers had been around for the past 21 Kyrs to measure year-to-year changes I expect such detail would emerge.”

            Ever heard of temperature proxies, based on the ratio of the oxygen isotopes 18O/16O? The ratio is a linear function of temperature.

            Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than the average after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.

            From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

            global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
            global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C

            so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.005 C/decade, compared to NOAAs current 30-year trend of +0.17 C/decade

            So that’s a factor of 32 now compared to then.

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html

          • David Appell says:

            AaronS says:
            “I am skeptical of any climate based model claim and do not consider a model conclusio, which is a hypothesis, as more significant than empirical data.”

            The data too come from models.

            Do you favor some models and not others?

          • barry says:

            I am skeptical of any climate based model claim and do not consider a model conclusio, which is a hypothesis, as more significant than empirical data.

            The study cited by David uses more empirical data than any before. It is based on 10 years of empirical experiments at CERN, and compared with atmospheric observations.

            There is the PNAS paper showing causation and svensmark papers plus updated talks that show correlation.

            The math in Svensmarks’ paper was flawed. When corrected (only the math fails), there is pretty good correlation until about 1980, and then a clear divergence thereafter. Numerous papers since have assessed the correlation between GCR and temps, and GCR and cloud cover. Long-term trend of GCR is lightly upwards, which should case global cooling, but we see the opposite. Correlation with temps breaks down around 1980, and correlation with clouds breaks down from the 90s.

            Could you cite the PNAS paper? I don’t remember a PNAS report with a definitive conclusion on GCR cloud-seeding.

            There is a list of GCR/cloud papers here. It is by no means exhaustive. I have a bunch of other papers I could list for you on the subject if you are interested.

          • AaronS says:

            Barry,

            Here is the causation at higher frequencies and correlation at centery scales.

            Also if the correlation broke down in 1980, then that still suggests a big part of the warmig could have been natural from the major increase in solar activity from the G minimum at 1900 and the solar max from 1950 to 2000. If u look at Be and C radiogenic isotopes this was the strongest solar max in over 2000 years. I think a break down at 1980 could be possible bc the max was weakening onward until the collapse in about 2000. Here is paper.

            http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full

          • barry says:

            Aaron,

            Barry and Dave. You seem to be confused. The cloud albedo effect is the big negative (cooling) one from sulfate pollution. The thought is it masks warming from CO2 today and it is a major part of high sensitivitt scenarios. Cosmic rays are another dicrete issue all together. For experts im surprised you didnt know this.

            This is the first time you’ve mentioned sulphate pollution. The reason we have been talking about cosmic rays is that you’ve mentioned that several times – in this very sub-thread. Quoting you:

            It is becoming abundantly clear that man made warming is exaggerated in IPCC models by: 1. the exclusion of indirect solar warming from cosmic rays influence on clouds…

            We dont understand the sun and the indirect impact on climate from clouds and the relationship with the magnetic field.

            That’s cosmic ray/cloud research.

            Also the models seem to have overestimated the cloud albedo effect and this is currently under question from a lil boot leg lab called CERN…

            (CERN research was quoted on GCR and clouds – this is the research that is focussed on hither and yon in the general debate)

            There is the PNAS paper showing causation…

            Paper you’ve linked is about cosmic rays and cloud formation.

            We don’t mind-read (at least I don’t have that capability), so if you wanted us to discuss sulphate pollution and albedo, you should have said so before complaining that we didn’t address it.

          • barry says:

            Aaron,

            There is the PNAS paper showing causation

            Between cosmic rays, cloud formation and climate change.

            Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT. They resonate with the physical and chemical evidence emerging from laboratory studies suggesting a theoretical dynamic link between galactic CR and GT. However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed (by first-differencing). Thus, it is important to stress that they do not suggest that CR influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC (25). Indeed, the opposite is true: we show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.

            http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full

            The summary of the paper seems to be at odds with your description of it (see bolded and underlined). As your comments have been rather vague, it’s impossible to be more definite.

          • AaronS says:

            Barry

            I wrote and contributed a long reply. I dont know if im being filtered or what but many of my posts dont make it. Id love to continue this conversation with literature.

            In a sentence the PNAS paper method didnt have data length to measure 90 yr solar cycle so they filtered. But they did present a good correlation. Point is cr and co2 seem to influence climate. Some models need a stronger sun.

          • barry says:

            You do realize not all climate change is global right?

            Sure (Winter/Summer is one example). But were talking about global climate change on this thread.

          • barry says:

            Aaron,

            This website has a few key words that bin comments, some chosen by the owner, others that seem to glitch. Certain ways of writing the Hadley dataset prevent posting. You’re not being targeted.

            If ever you have trouble posting a link, convert it at tinyurl.com and it will be allowed here. The site tends to bin comments that include long web addresses.

          • barry says:

            Aaron, the paper you cited – and especially the concluding paragraph I quoted – makes it clear they think GCRs have a small effect on climate, if any, and can’t explain the observed warming of the last century or so. It can explain, according to them, short-term fluctuations to a small degree.

            Now you’re saying their method is deficient. One wonders why you’ve cited it in the first place, particularly when it states clearly GCR is not responsible for the warming – and that what they’ve discovered doesn’t impact on IPCC conclusions, which is stated very clearly.

            Svensmark is an outlier among a far larger raft of research that finds little connection with GCR and modern climate change. You cited CERN – I’ve been following their empirical experiments and analysis re global climate.

            I’ve posted the long list of research papers concluding little influence of GCR fluctuation on climate, as well as the most recent results from CERN which corroborate those papers.

            I wonder if you’ve investigated these links, and given them some thought. Here they are again:

            List of papers on GCR and clouds and the effect on climate:

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/papers-on-the-non-significant-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate/

            Latest CERN results:

            …the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

            http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global%20atmospheric%20particle%20formation.pdf

          • AaronS says:

            Barry, thanks that does explain it.

            I. Barry,
            I am confused what u mean. For example over the last 4200 years the asian monsoon has been dominated by solar forcing and the dominant driver is magnetic field not irradiance. We both know that there is a big difference between regional climate and global, but I dont see how a galactic process only impacts regional data? Also, I see similar magnetic field cycles in my own research dominate precipitation.

            II. Also you suggest the PNAS paper is counter my own point. Not true the correlation supports the 90 yr forcing and the causal method can not detect it bc insufficient data length.

            III. The concept that solar mag to climate link broke down recently is new to me and i will need to evaluate more. I can see this as a possibility bc the atmosphere has changed regarding seeds.

            IV. We both know there will be a new post soon. Lets wait on that bc we will both leve here for the new thead.

          • barry says:

            Aaron,

            I had to look up this connection between GCR and monsoon variability. It is an outlying theory of what drives monsoon variation.

            Wikipedia has a good selection of the more prominent theories.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon_of_South_Asia#Theories_for_mechanism_of_monsoon

            I’m curious about your interest in outlying theories (so it seems to me).

            If I want to understand something, I’ll usually start with review papers that cover a bunch of papers, then read the most cited works on a given topic. After a while I get an idea on what theories prevail and what are outliers.

            Do you do any differently?

            (Happy to continue on the new thread)

          • AaronS says:

            I replied below at another thread you are on. Im struggling to find the conversation on my phone

          • barry says:

            Aaron, I think I’m reading the paper rightly. There is no long-term correlation between the 20th century warming trend and GCR. They say so quite clearly.

            The analysis shows that the dominant warming signal on this century-long timescale is not a measurable consequence of dynamic forcing by CR.

            There is no mention at all of ’90 years’, just the centennial trend – 10 years longer. Their remarks are at odds with what you’re saying. They do not discuss a 90 year correlation in any respect.

            Perhaps you can quote the relevant sentence?

            http://m.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full

            When I first read it I noted here that they have fund a tentative link between GCR and annual global temp fluctuations, not long-term. This is from the abstract:

            We find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend; however, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect of CR on short-term, year-to-year variability in GT. Thus, although CR clearly do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales, providing another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability.

            That’s how I read the paper, and how they describe it.

            A few more quotes from the paper:

            Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system. Thus, although CR do not contribute measurably to the 20th-century global warming trend, they do appear as a nontraditional forcing in the climate system on short interannual timescales….

            Thus, CCM shows that there is a modest causal effect of CR on annual GT fluctuations…

            …there is no detectable convergence with the raw GT data containing the 20th-century warming trend…

            Lack of convergence combined with a failure to manifest significance beyond the surrogates demonstrates that CR has no discernable causal effect on the overall warming pattern for the 20th century. The analysis shows that the dominant warming signal on this century-long timescale is not a measurable consequence of dynamic forcing by CR….

            Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT. They resonate with the physical and chemical evidence emerging from laboratory studies suggesting a theoretical dynamic link between galactic CR and GT. However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed (by first-differencing). Thus, it is important to stress that they do not suggest that CR influences can explain global warming and should not be misinterpreted as being in conflict with the IPCC

            No mention that I can see of a 90-year forcing pattern (surely a century long lack of correlation ties this off?). Nor any mention of insufficiency in data length to probe it. All that seems to have come from yourself alone, not the paper.

            But I’m curious about what you might quote.

        • barry says:

          There were almost certainly single years of 0.8C deg warming associated with El Nino to la nina transitions, but u dont see those in the record.

          You don’t see those in the current record, either, but even if you did, a temporary annual change is not a big concern.

          JMA largest year-to-year variation is about 0.3C according to JMA.

          http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

          The lower troposphere (not where we live) annual temp variation tops out at 0.55C (1997-98).

          http://tinyurl.com/hem7u5o

          • AaronS says:

            Mid 98 to mid 99 was ~0.8 degrees in unsmoothed global troposphere data.

          • barry says:

            True, but that’s a short-term deviation. I don’t see how it matters WRT sustained change. IE, one day in Winter could be abysmally cold, but the crops survive. 10 years of bitter Winters reduces, if not kills off, your yield.

            Or put another way, your crops can survive diurnal swings many times larger than seasonal or interannual. Crops endure in a steady climate. But they are vulnerable to a change in those averages.

            (I work in the wine industry, among other things. Climate stability is an important factor)

          • AaronS says:

            Barry,

            Sorry could not find your question again so posted here. I dont consider this an outlier model. Its just ignored by the CO2 consensus. I trust math and empirical data not models. The paper below shows almost certainly that magnetics greatly influence the asian monsoon over long time scales. Interestingly there is a lag, in many papers. I have published my own spectral analysis that recorded solar magnetics as the dominant driver of climate recorded in lake varves and tree rings from the same 5Ma old site. If you had the experience of publishing supporting CO2 papers vs solar papers then you would understand my position. The politics are crazy… my former field of paleo climate has grown 10x bc the climate issue. If u dont see the bias to sustainthe the issue by those involved in the issue then im thinking you are misinformed. For example how can this paper below have less than 20 citations? It basically shows very strong evidence that magnetics have dominated asian monsoon variability for 4200 yrs. There are over 100 models zero have magnetics. That is mathmatically wrong. You cut the low case from a range and your base case (A2 model in IPCC) shoots up. There are examples where magnetic forcing comes and goes… like elk lake by anderson and dean, but there are many papers that show the effect. I cant help the establishment are almost natural climate deniers. The sunspot number was just adjusted to ease the concern the sun was a bigger factor… the math says this was unwaranted. Give me a few months u will see what i mean. All i can say go get a phd studying this stuff like i did then tell me how your expert opinion differs.

            http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159

          • Lewis says:

            Wine industry requires climate stability for the security of the industry, nothing more. Certainly wine grapes do better in some climates than others but it seems you extrapolate from that into much larger issues.

            The local variation in temperature here – piedmont of NC – is some 25 to 35 degrees daily. Highs in summer run to 105 occasionally and in the winter to 0F. Annuals have no problem migrating, trees actually don’t either. Why – Birds carry their seeds. They are always trying to live outside their current territory. Just as soon as the climate changes, they will begin to change their territory.

            Unlike people, they won’t have to have a committee meeting and come to a consensus about whether or not to, they are constantly trying to move.

            Animals, no problem. Just walk, or fly.

            No Barry the problem is people and their contrariness. They build, grow wine vines, in one place and want to keep that place and so cry foul when something might make them change.

            In all I find the rate argument specious and imaginary.

          • barry says:

            We are not trees, we are land-locked civilizations and countries that rely on a stable water supply and dependable agriculture. If agricultural zones migrate, if rice paddies become too saline/flooded from rising sea levels to maintain, if glaciers supplying water in dry seasons disappear (requiring dams to replace them?), then that is going to cause problems and come at a cost, whether people cry foul or not.

            None of this mattered so much when we were nomads thousands of years ago. We’d make like trees and follow the climate. It’s a different world from the last interglacial.

            A slow rate of change is more manageable than a rapid one. To get back to my original point.

          • wert says:

            “A slow rate of change is more manageable than a rapid one. To get back to my original point.”

            True. However it is colder where I live compared to the holocenic optimum. By at least 1-2 K. I think I can stand the return of the warmth. I would not complain about 3K or 4K. But I don’t think humans have enough coal for that.

          • David Appell says:

            wert:

            There is easily enough coal for 3-4 K warming. The total resource base would, if burned, cause 8-25 K of warming (Swart and Weaver, Nature Climate Change 2012).

            3 billion people live in the tropics (about 40% of humankind). How do you think they would feel about 3-4 K of warming?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis says:
            “The local variation in temperature here piedmont of NC is some 25 to 35 degrees daily. Highs in summer run to 105 occasionally and in the winter to 0F. Annuals have no problem migrating, trees actually dont either.”

            So Lewis apparently thinks that the temperature difference in his backyard every night is much more significant than the 5 C change in global mean temperature from when there was two miles of ice over Chicago….

          • wert says:

            David:”The total resource base would, if burned, cause 8-25 K of warming”

            Swart and Waaver paywalled, sorry. Are you sure they didn’t have an agenda?

            There is about 1000 billion tons of recoverable coal, of which about 9 billion tons (0.9 %) is burnt per year.

            All human emissions raise atmospheric CO2 by 2ppm/year. Calculate, with current rate, how high you’ll get before coal is “out”. (it never will, since price will get up)

            I don’t think you’ll get 8K-25K with coal alone, let alone quickly.

            Using all hydrocarbons is theoretically a slightly different thing. Though I find it improbable humans would mess things up inadvertedly.

            “3 billion people live in the tropics (about 40% of humankind). How do you think they would feel about 3-4 K of warming”

            They’re already moving in, and don’t seem to like the massive cold we have here. But they like the GDP produced with energy. As said, cold kills. There is a reason why large Siberia is uninhabited. When I’ll retire, Florida would be a nice place. I’m not gonna choose Greenland, Spitsbergen or Fairbanks.

          • David Appell says:

            wert says:
            “Swart and Waaver paywalled, sorry.”

            Your problem, not mine. Go to your local library.

            “There is about 1000 billion tons of recoverable coal,”

            Swart and Weaver say 600 Gt of carbon, so close enough. But the total amount of carbon (in coal) that’s known is about 10,000 GtC. That’s where the 8-25 K value comes from.

            3 billion people live in the tropics (about 40% of humankind). How do you think they would feel about 3-4 K of warming

            “Theyre already moving in, and dont seem to like the massive cold we have here. But they like the GDP produced with energy. As said, cold kills. There is a reason why large Siberia is uninhabited. When Ill retire, Florida would be a nice place. Im not gonna choose Greenland, Spitsbergen or Fairbanks.”

            Heat also kills. Particularly in the tropics.

          • wert says:

            “Your problem, not mine. Go to your local library.”

            Thanks for you help. Maybe they should have done open science? My local library doesn’t much help. They’ve more interested in loaning music and umbrellas. I know because I did try to get some papers I’m interested in through them. Luckily there is a lot of science without a paywall, unless you want all the bleeding edge publications. Depends a little bit on field, my experience is related on biology / medicine.

            “Swart and Weaver say 600 Gt of carbon, so close enough. But the total amount of carbon (in coal) thats known is about 10,000 GtC. Thats where the 8-25 K value comes from.”

            I presume (which is bad habit of mine) they didn’t have qualifications to evaluate how much of that is usable and on what time frame / price. I think leftists make bad economists. But not letting details spoil a story is just a virtue in advocacy.

          • barry says:

            wert,

            This may be a link to the full version of the Swart & Weaver study:

            http://miscellaneousmaterial.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/alberta-oil-sands-and-climate-nature.html

          • David Appell says:

            No comments, wert? Can read S&W’s paper?

        • barry says:

          You do realize not all climate change is global right?

          Sure (Winter and Summer is a good example). But we’re talking about global climate change on this thread.

    • David Appell says:

      AaronS says:
      “Mammals, corals, trees, even polar bears did fine last interglacial 125k yr ago when sea level was >6m higher than today.”

      Did they do “fine?”

      Of course, none of them had built cities on the coasts….

      • wert says:

        David, I think it is cheaper to let property owners loose some money (they already got a lot if they have the property) than try to stabilise atmospheric CO2 OR build huge dams OR force property owners to rebuild in a flood proof manner.

        The invisible hand of the markets will rate the risk of flood. There will be larger insurance premiums, in some cases the insurance company will just stop selling a flood insurance.

        Left wing people always want the government to find a solution. There is nothing to do here, except maybe making sure that there are multiple insurance companies to choose from. And building standards that make sure institutions like big building companies and government build responsibly, as governments don’t use insurances.

        • David Appell says:

          People who lose homes and businesses to rising sea level aren’t going to just walk away and say, “Oh well.”

          They and their lawyers and their representatives are going to insist they be made whole by the government, because they didn’t cause the problem but disproportionately suffered its impacts.

          Taxpayers will be bailing them out for centuries….

          • wert says:

            David, of course they are. People buy and sell property all the time. Sea level will not rise over night. People will adapt. There is no other way.

            I’m not fond of taxpayers paying for damages, but even that is better than taxpayers paying in advance trying to stop something that will not stop with those efforts and then paying again for damages.

            Sea level sounds like a disaster, but it is not. It’s tsunamis, storms and earthquakes. People will just walk away and say oh well, I’m alive. You can’t litigate the nature.

          • David Appell says:

            How will people “adapt” to losing the largest asset most of them own?

            Why isn’t preventing sea level rise cheaper than paying for all it will destroy?

            “Sea level sounds like a disaster, but it is not. Its tsunamis, storms and earthquakes.”

            No, sea level rise will easily swamp *all* of these. Look how much Hurricane Sandy, which happened to be a direct hit — cost New York City — about $60 billion.

            Now what is the cost of the entire city being destroyed? Tens of trillions of dollars? Hundreds of trillions? More?

      • David Appell says:

        wert wrote:
        “There is nothing to do here, except maybe making sure that there are multiple insurance companies to choose from.”

        And how is that done, in a free market system?

        At some people insurance companies will stop selling flood insurance covering losses to the sea. Whoever owns the property at that point is left holding the bag. Government will become the insurer, and they the payer, of last resort.

        • wert says:

          You don’t seem understand the idea of an insurance. It is about a risk, not about a loss already at hand. The same with markets like stock exchange.

          If you are afraid, sell your beach front now.

          Government will not be an insurer. It might just as well confiscate your beach by taking away your right to stay there, cutting off your water or electricity, or even forcibly denying your rights to your property as happened in Christchurch.

          • David Appell says:

            No one is going to buy the beachfront house you want to sell now unless they can obtain insurance on it. And who’s going to buy a house that will be inundated in 20 years?

            Without insurance, when that house is swamped by sea level rise, it is the government who will make the owner whole. That makes the government the effective insurer of last resort. It’s already happening on the barrier islands off the Carolinas, where houses don’t belong in the first place. Taxpayers are subsidizing. You and me.

            Government will not be confiscating anyone’s beach. It’s just the opposite — government will be paying for the houses and beaches destroyed by sea level rise. It’s going to cost trillions, and probably 10s of trillions (at least).

  58. Patrick healy says:

    Sadly Dr Roy, this CDS (Climate Dysfunctional Syndrome) as shown by your deranged correspondent above, is more prevalent than you would expect.
    Witness the latest incoherence from the leader of ‘my’ church.
    Pope Francis says that Islamic terrorism does not exist, but Mann made global warming does.
    Bill Gates says the next (Again!) Pan epidemic will be as big a threat as global warming.
    The upside appears to be that we should have no worries.
    Am I reading that right?

  59. Stephen Richards says:

    John Cadogan at autoexpert.tv.au has recently made a youtube video describing his problems with idiots. He now uses them to make more videos. Worth a watch. He can be very entertaining once you get by the “fuckwits” “arseholes” etc.

    He says that if you stick your head above the parapet someone will always try to take you down. So, he says, don’t put yourself on the web unless you are thick skinned.

    NOW Roy I don’t wish you to take his advice. Stick with it. You are important to us all.

  60. Flemming Kjemtrup Sørensen says:

    Dear Roy Spencer

    For many years I’ve followed your work and comments and I´m allways amazed. Serious and balanced stuff seldom found on the Internet and now this “fan mail” just arrived!

    How can someone write such things?

    Well, I’m still out of balance but hope you’ll keep up the magnificent work.

    Best wishes

    Flemming Kjemtrup Sørensen, Denmark

  61. Tim Wells says:

    This guy is even more deluded than Al Gore. I suspect he has escaped people who wear white coats.

  62. I get mail and comments a lot like this on a regular basis….but in this case, you win!

  63. Nils Rmcke says:

    I am envious! I never get fan-mails like that . . .

  64. JamesW says:

    I can’t be sure but I think the author might be my ex-wife!

    • barry says:

      Thanks, Werner. Congratulations to you. And now I can say I’ve contributed to a WUWT post.

      • Werner Brozek says:

        With 114 comments in under 11 hours, I would say it was a huge success! Thank you!
        Would you like to do it again next month? Only if you enjoy it and are interested, would you be willing to do what we published for UAH for RSS after the February numbers are out?

        • barry says:

          Quite possibly. Remind me then and I’ll do it again. After a while, though, incremental differences will probably lose their appeal.

    • David Appell says:

      Werner, as I’ve told you in the past, without error bars and statistical significances, you are only doing numerology, not science.

  65. Obama says:

    Oh man, that was a howler! Thanks for sharing. Too funny. Laughter is a wonderful medicine.

  66. ren says:

    To summer the destruction of the outflow in Oroville will be enormous.

    • ren says:

      Maxwells plight followed a week of high stress during mass evacuations from Oroville, Yuba City and Marysville.

      Along the Sacramento River on Saturday morning from Bend Bridge to the Ord Ferry, weather service monitors recorded water levels that remained at or just above flood stages.

      And its not over. A large storm is expected to dump heavy rain over Northern California and add several feet of snow to mountain passes starting Sunday night.

      In the Central Valley, forecasters call for 2 inches to 3 inches of rain through Tuesday. At higher elevations, the heavy rain could reach 5 to 7.5 inches during the period, said Hannah Chandler, weather service meteorologist. She said the onslaught threatens to produce more mudslides and flooding.

      Donner Pass will receive around 18 inches of snow, she said, and Carson and Ebbetts Pass in Alpine County are expected to receive 38 to 40 inches of snow.

      The storm should hit us hard on Monday into Tuesday, Chandler said. So we do have a flood watch out for our entire area for that time frame.
      http://www.sacbee.com/news/weather/article133701629.html

    • Pete Mack says:

      That destruction would happen whether or not the spillway were damaged. The inflow to Oroville dam is beyond it’s capacity, so the operators have no choice but to continue releasing water. Yeah, they could delay some of the releases a bit. But that water has to go somewhere.

  67. the increased acidification of the ocean is a big probkem.Pete Mack says:

    I think you’re wrong on global warming too, but wrong in an interesting, publishable way. The evidence in the polar regions is just too strong to explain without reference to some kind of forcing. Gigatons of melted ice sheet, and massive loss of Arctic ocean ice cap are hard to explain without reference to the increased greenhouse effect. And even without it, increased acidification of the ocean is already a big problem.

  68. Obama says:

    Mr. Werner Brozek,
    Can you please provide a concise summary/conclusion to your analysis for non-scientists who follow the debate? I read Barry’s and sorta understood what he was saying. But I’m not clear as to what your conclusion is. It is too technical for the layman. Would you mind providing a concise point of view that an educated layman can understand?

    Thanks in advance

    • Werner Brozek says:

      Feel free to join the discussion where my blog post is posted. As for my conclusion: I believe there is no way that the pause of over 18 years will resume this year. The slope for UAH starting with January 1998 will be positive well into 2018 or longer.

      • Obama says:

        Thanks. I had a lot of trouble posting a comment over there. So I think you are saying the “pause” has ended and the warming has resumed. How much warming? I am familiar with the metric of Centigrades/Decade. I follow this closely for all 3 methodologies (surface, satellite, and radiosondes).

        Rate of warming seems to be an important metric in terms of how significant or insignificant the problem may or may not be. (I could care less whether it is man caused or not man caused). I am only interested in the rate of change, regardless of cause.

        What is the data saying as to the rate of global warming per decade from 1998 to 2018 based on your analysis? I am a layman and perfectly comfortable with ranges and educated guesses (I know this causes scientists heartburn, not me).

        I am just trying to understand the magnitude. Is it bigger than a bread box? I work in finance and accounting and we seem to be more comfortable with the term, “materiality”.

        • Obama says:

          One more point as to my bias in all this. While I am sort of agnostic as to man-caused or not man-caused. I am arrogantly confident that Government Policies have absolutely ZERO impact on changing the rate of change. I believe Government Policies are a hoax. Global warming is real but Political solutions are a hoax. For example, California’s Cap & Trade does absolutely nothing to the climate and nothing to the meteorological conditions anywhere on earth. I think I am on solid scientific ground. Correct me if I am wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            “…Californias Cap & Trade does absolutely nothing to the climate and nothing to the meteorological conditions anywhere on earth. I think I am on solid scientific ground. Correct me if I am wrong.”

            Where are your data?

          • Obama says:

            As far as I know there is zero scientific evidence of any measurable impact on the meteorological conditions on earth. There is.no scientific data of any impact on climate. No one has provided me a link as to the observed climate impact of ca cap trade scheme. The politicians brand the scheme as fighting climate change. There is no evidence.

          • David Appell says:

            Bob Tisdale thinks global warming comes from El Ninos…. So he isn’t exactly credible…..

          • Obama says:

            Excellent. Looks like all the data sets are under 0.20 degrees per decade. I guess an average of the surface & satellite data is about 0.16 degrees per decade. Well under 2 degrees per 100 years.

          • David Appell says:

            There is no scientific justification for assuming warming is linear and will be at its current trend over the next century.

          • Obama says:

            Understood. But just wanted to know the current observed trend. We will need to continue observing this trend over the future decades.

            Is there any statistical probability greater than 95% that the current trend (average of satellite, surface, radiosonde) will increase to a rate greater than 2 degrees in the next 20 to 40 years? If so, what will the warming be in the next 20 to 40 years?

          • Obama says:

            I meant greater than 2 degrees per decade. I am curious as to the timing when this is expected to occur with a 95% confidence level?

          • Obama says:

            I’m sorry. Sheesh. I meant greater than 0.20 degrees per decade. I confused century with decade. Boy, did I botch that.

          • David Appell says:

            Obama [lousy username] says:
            “Understood. But just wanted to know the current observed trend. We will need to continue observing this trend over the future decades.”

            I would refer you to the IPCC 5AR projections based on the four RCPs.

            Here, for example, are some model projections:

            main page:
            http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/

            RCP 2.6 http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/global_tas_Amon_GISS-E2-R_rcp26_ave.dat
            RCP 6.0 r1i1p1 http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/global_tas_Amon_GISS-E2-R_rcp60_r1i1p1.dat
            RCP 6.0 r1i1p2 http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/global_tas_Amon_GISS-E2-R_rcp60_r1i1p2.dat
            RCP 6.0 r1i1p3 http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/global_tas_Amon_GISS-E2-R_rcp60_r1i1p3.dat

            For RCP 8.5, they show temperatures increasing over this decade by about 0.3 C/decade. About the same by 2030, and by 0.4 C in the decade ending 2039. 0.5 C/decade over the decade ending in 2059. Etc.

            Fun numbers to play with.

          • Obama says:

            Ok. So let’s wait and see if the models match observations. Fun times!

          • David Appell says:

            Obama says:
            “Ok. So lets wait and see if the models match observations. Fun times!”

            We already have those data:

            http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.png

          • Obama says:

            OK. So you are 95% confident that the mean rate of global warming will exceed 2 degrees per decade within 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now? Can you please provide your best estimate (95% confidence) as to when this will happen (+/- 10 years). That graph is too complicated to figure out. You are a scientist and really smart. Can you just boil down as to when the rate of warming will exceed .20 degrees centigrade per decade? When will that happen?

          • Obama says:

            Sheesh. My apologies again. I mean 0.20 degrees per decade. NOT 2 degrees. I keep mixing up decade and century.

          • barry says:

            Obama,

            The 2007 IPCC report (AR4) posited that warming would proceed at about 0.2C/decade over the next 2 decades (20 years).

            We’re halfway through that projection.

            ‘About’ 0.2C I take to mean 0.15 – 2.5C – that’s pretty much the range, especially for a short time period.

            Current trends from the major global climate indices from 2006 to present are within that range.

            Had4: 0.263 C/decade (+/- 0.246)
            NOAA: 0.308 C/decade (+/- 0.230)
            GISS: 0.286 C/decade (+/- 0.245)
            RSS : 0.237 C/decade (+/- 0.389)

            Caveats:

            Period is way too short yet to get an accurate estimate.

            The large el Nino near the end of the time series has a major influence on the slope. Likely the slopes will reduce somewhat over time.

            Although 3 out of 4 of those indices show statistical significance (warming is statstically significant), no one would say that this is actual statistical significance, as other trends of the same length in the record tend to be statistically non-significant, therefore significance here is a coincidence of the time series progression, not a reliable indicator.

            UAHv6 not yet included in the app I use for trend calculation. I can do a simpler linear regression and apply the same uncertainty as RSS, which would be close, but not perfect.

            UAH6: 0.268 C/decade (+/- 0.389)

          • David Appell says:

            Good barry. And if you include autocorrelation — that fact that months prior have an influence on what a particular month’s temperature will be — the uncertainties become significantly larger — even a factor of two or more.

            Short-term trends (< at least 30 years) mean absolutely nothing, statistically. Quoting them is numerology, not science.

          • barry says:

            Short-term trends (< at least 30 years) mean absolutely nothing, statistically. Quoting them is numerology, not science.

            I don’t think this holds hard and fast for 20 year trends. AR4 made a projection for 20 years in the SPM, after all. Not scientific, then? Numerology?. But I would caveat that this would apply for surface temps only, not lower trop records, which have more variability, and hence more uncertainty for a 20-year record.

            Barton Paul Levenson did a series of posts some years back testing period lengths in surface data to find the shortest period length to get a viable trend. 20-30 years was the result – for surface temperature data.

    • barry says:

      I’m happy to clarify here, if you like.

      • Obama says:

        Please do. See my follow up questions above. Again, I am not a scientist just a very informed layman and follow the debate closely (I probably only understand about 70% of what you guys are talking about).

      • barry says:

        I read your comments – they are orthogonal to what I was talking about.

        Not included in the trend analyses is the uncertainty. Bob Tisdale doesn’t do this either, and it’s a conspicuous flaw.

        To properly express the trend rate from 1979 (beginning of the satellite period, so we can compare across datasets), the trends with uncertainties are:

        Had4: 0.172C/decade (+/- 0.038)

        Convert to the range is done by adding/subtracting the uncertainty from the mean estimate…

        Had4: 0.13 to 0.21C/decade
        NOAA: 0.13 to 0.20C/decade
        GISS: 0.13 to 0.21C/decade
        RSS: 0.07 to 0.20C/decade

        (UAH v6 not yet included on the app I’m using)

        Uncertainy bounds all include a possible 0.2C/decade warming since 1979.

        That’s slightly higher than predicted, and the mean slope is about what was predicted for that period.

        As David said, no reason to expect that trend to continue. Over time, the error bars will narrow – more data, less uncertainty.

        Figoring out the likelihoods of what you’re asking is above my paygrade. You could refer to the model ensemble spread of the IPCC, but you’d have to do some serious legwork to answer your question. IPCC estimates typically are of decadal averages every 30 years or so. So you’ll get near to your answer just by searching the chapters on projections in AR4 or AR5 Working Group One.

        AR4 (2007)
        AR5 (2013)

        • Obama says:

          Thanks. I guess we will have to wait and see if real world observations match the models. Interesting times.

          I wonder if Vegas has a betting line on the increased rate of warming going above 0.20 degrees per decade in the next 20 to 40 years.

          But a lot of us won’t be around then to find out if we won the bet.

        • Werner Brozek says:

          Nick Stokes has the following for UAH6:

          Temperature Anomaly trend
          Jan 1979 to Jan 2017
          Rate: 1.229C/Century;
          CI from 0.816 to 1.643;
          t-statistic 5.822;
          Range -0.209C to 0.258C

          (He has many others as well.)
          https://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

          • Obama says:

            Thanks. Current observed warming trends are under 2 degrees centigrade per Century. Close enough for layman conversation.

            And of course we need to continue to observe this over time and compare to the climate model forecasts.

            I assume we may need a couple more decades of real world observations and research before we can really understand the causes of global warming.

            If the real world observations materially match the models over the next decade or two then this would confirm today’s understanding of causation. If they don’t then there is a lot more work/research to do.

          • barry says:

            Thanks. Current observed warming trends are under 2 degrees centigrade per Century

            That’s the mean trend, not the trend including the uncertainty range.

            Eg, 0.15C/decade +/- 0.08 means that a trend of 0.2C is within the uncertainty envelope.

            Trend estimates give a mean value (0.15C/decade, for example), but that is only the most likely, not some definite answer. Trend analysis is a probabilistic, not a determinstic analysis.

          • Obama says:

            I’m not a scientist. The mean measure is good enough for a baseline discussion among lay persons. Close enough.

          • David Appell says:

            Obama says:
            “I assume we may need a couple more decades of real world observations and research before we can really understand the causes of global warming.”

            Why? We already understand the cause of global warming — man’s emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion.

          • Obama says:

            All 100%? Really? The science is entirely settled? No doubt? 95% certainty that ALL global warming is due to 100% man caused?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, the science says that all of modern warming is due to man.

            “Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14

            http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html

          • barry says:

            Im not a scientist. The mean measure is good enough for a baseline discussion among lay persons. Close enough.

            Let’s explore ‘close enough.’

            If the mean projection is 0.2000 /decade
            And the result turns out 0.2002 /decade

            Would you say that the projection has been falsified?

            I’m going to assume that you would think it quite unreasonable to say the projection is falsified with that little difference.

            Which begs the question – how much difference does there need to be before one could say the projection has been falsified?

            That’s not an arbitrary question. And the solutions are not arbitrary. Getting to grips with probability and uncertainty estimates takes a bit of reading, but a lay person can get it conceptually without knowing much about math.

            Without that understanding, figuring out whether projections and observations match up ‘close enough’ is kind of arbitrary.

  69. Steve Holden says:

    I didn’t read all of the comments, so someone might have already diagnosed the abominable malady the potty-mouthed detractor is afflicted with. TERRETS and it is advanced.

  70. ren says:

    During periods of low solar activity the polar vortex is weak and temperatures over the Arctic and Antarctic will be higher, at the same time in the mid latitudes lower.
    https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

  71. Snowready says:

    Wow we are polarized as a nation how sad. I believe humans cause global warming. However natural warming cycles are also at play. I stop short of telling people what to do or how to live because I am not willing at this time to give up the comforts and technology fossil fuels have have given me. That would make me a hypocrite

    • ren says:

      How do you think what causes major changes in the climate: human activity or the activity of the Sun?
      http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif

      • the increased acidification of the ocean is a big probkem.Pete Mack says:

        Why should it be one but not the other? Both are forcings of similar magnitude over the years. So why would one have a qualitatively different effect based on its magnitude?

        The sun caused the Maunder minimum and the medieval but this time around it’s CO2 that is varying most significantly. This year’s solar cycle is roughly the same as 100 years ago. But the actual climate is quite different.

      • David Appell says:

        ren: Unfortunately (for your hypothesis), the Sun’s irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s….

        http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png

        • You do realize that changes in global climate lag those of changes in solar activity right?

          • David Appell says:

            Really? Where does the Sun’s heat hide out in the meantime…?

          • What do you mean where does the Suns heat hide out in the meantime? A little experiment for you David Next time you cook a pan of food for dinner. Put the heat on high. When the food is ready turn the burner off. Notice that when left on the burner perferably electric the food in the pan is still sizzling even though the heat from the burner has been minimized. Well same thing with solar driven cycles along with corresponding climate changes in response.

          • David Appell says:

            You said there a “lag” between changes in solar activity and climate. So if the sun radiates more, where does that energy hang out during the alleged lag?

          • David, what I said was actually the opposite. The so called bicentennial cycle of the sun that runs on the order of around 200 years ended in 1958 however it didn’t really end in 1958 because while the sun was beginning to go to sleep and solar activity was on the decrease the temperatures were not so the temperatures kept increasing while the sun was still going in the opposite direction. Many people especially alarmists who know this don’t like to admit this because it shatters there agenda to a million peices. The earth just hasn’t felt the affect of the sun beginning to go to sleep yet so it kept getting warmer until the global warming hiatus from 1998-2016 which has now reversed its track since February 2016 and is now plummeting downwards. just like the pan scenario I provided you with above

          • David Appell says:

            “The earth just hasnt felt the affect of the sun beginning to go to sleep yet”

            So are you claiming the heat (loss) from the Sun is hiding out in space somewhere, circling around until the lag time is up and then it impacts the Earth??

          • No. What I’m saying is the sun is too far away from the earth to have a direct impact right away with changes in solar activity and correlated climate change as you speak of again, it all goes back to the expirement with the sizzling pan and the cook top I mentioned in one of my previous comments. the pan absorbing that heat can’t just stop absorbing it right after the cooktop is turned off causing the pan to immidietly stop sizzling. it is a lagging effect. Similar concept only two different examples

          • David Appell says:

            ClimateChange4realz says:
            “…while the sun was beginning to go to sleep and solar activity was on the decrease the temperatures were not so the temperatures kept increasing while the sun was still going in the opposite direction. Many people especially alarmists who know this dont like to admit this…”

            Actually they admit it all the time — as evidence the Sun isn’t responsible for modern warming.

    • JDHuffman says:

      “I believe humans cause global warming.”

      Yes, “Snowready”, AGW is definitely a “belief system”.

      There is NO science to support it.

  72. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Roy,
    If Hillary had won, your ‘fan’s’ hair would probably not be on fire, and they probably wouldn’t have bothered with the raging email. There are some people who are clearly on the edge of rationality; Hillary’s loss probably pushed this one over the edge.

    • David Appell says:

      Hillary won by 3 M votes….

      • Randy Cornwell says:

        I think you mean Hillary “received” 3M more votes as she did not Hillary win.

      • barry says:

        Hillary lost. She got more of the popular vote. Both are true. Trump’s win is legitmtate undr a system they both understood and submitted to. Trump critics – of which I am one – need to accept that result and move on (even if Trump hasn’t).

        • SocietalNorm says:

          A majority of the people voted against Hillary Clinton. Even if you include Jill Stein, Clinton and Stein got less votes than Donald Trump and Gary Johnson. The majority do not want the Clinton agenda and prefer freedom even if the alternative is not what many voters wanted – causing many to just not vote.
          The election was a vote against Clinton, leftism, and politically correct silliness like spending trillions of dollars that even global warming fanatics believe will make only a tiny difference in the “global temperature.”
          Hey, it may cause lots of deaths and misery in the world, but the global warming proponents will feel good about themselves.

          • David Appell says:

            SocietalNorm says:
            “A majority of the people voted against Hillary Clinton.”

            And a larger majority voted against Trump.

          • barry says:

            SocNorm,

            Hillary got more votes than Trump. That’s not deniable. Trump won the election. That’s not deniable, either.

            Trump talks out of his arse frequently. That’s not deniable. To his supporters his lack of presidentiality is a bonus. For me, his casual relationship with facts is huge minus. Can’t trust what he says. He’s a hustler.

          • SocietalNorm says:

            Barry and whomever reads this,
            I’m not going to argue about Trump’s words. Not my first choice, but better than the alternative in the end. I measure people by what they do versus what they say. I let the words slide off while I look at his actions. We’ll see what occurs in the next few years. Just don’t worry about what he says – if he says something is the BIGGEST EVER!!!!, but it’s actually the 11th biggest, you can get in a tizzy or see if he does what he promised to do. You may or may not like it, but his actions show that he is the MOST HONEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!! (to use a Trumpism, here).
            Given his need for self-regard, the need to always do the biggest and the best, he is (truly) driven to be the best President ever and will try his utmost to do that.
            I remember an old Bob Newhart TV show (Bob played a psychiatrist) where he was hired to help a company where all the sales people were stressed out and unhappy. Bob helped them be more-rounded happier people. He was then fired because the sales people weren’t driven to sell as much and company profits went down.
            Let’s hope his flaws and peculiarities are a great benefit to America. A happy America is good for the world, too.
            Just relax, observe, and enjoy your life.
            In the end, God loves us.
            Hope this post made you smile at least a bit.

  73. Ken in Idaho says:

    So, does this guy know that forests on the east coast are being changed by the habits of white tailed deer. They are impacting the environment too. There are only perhaps several million on the east coast. But he doesn’t need to write a letter or use profanities to them, hunting whitetail is legal…

    http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

  74. ren says:

    Let’s stick to the data. The temperature in the Arctic continues to decline. Why?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
    Is CO2 is causing waves in the high layers of the atmosphere? If someone says so, it is ignorant.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png
    Cycles changes in magnetic field strength the Sun include several cycles of 11 years. Changes are temporarily slow, then accelerate.
    https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif

    Solar Wind Variations
    The solar wind is not uniform. Although it is always directed away from the Sun, it changes speed and carries with it magnetic clouds, interacting regions where high speed wind catches up with slow speed wind, and composition variations. The solar wind speed is high (800 km/s) over coronal holes and low (300 km/s) over streamers. These high and low speed streams interact with each other and alternately pass by the Earth as the Sun rotates. These wind speed variations buffet the Earth’s magnetic field and can produce storms in the Earth’s magnetosphere.
    https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml

  75. ren says:

    “By Sunday afternoon, the California Department of Water Resources had released enough water from the Oroville reservoir to lower its elevation to 852 feet, creating enough room to absorb runoff from incoming storms including one due to arrive Sunday night that could dump as much as 5 inches of rain on the site by Tuesday.

    Weve known for several days that this storm was coming, which is why weve continued to take water out of the reservoir, said Chris Orrock, a spokesman for the agency. We might expect a short period of time when inflows will outpace outflows.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oroville-flooding-rain-20170219-story.html
    Information Dr. Roy Spencer helped save the lives of many people !!!

    • the increased acidification of the ocean is a big probkem.Pete Mack says:

      Uh what? The main action is at metabunk.com in any case.

      Ren, your discussion of low solar activity leading to warmer arctic reads like a just so story. For one thing, in the image you site (of solar neutron activity rather than actual TSI–why?) shows higher than average levels this year. You are linking to tons of raw data without any unifying theory of why that data matters.
      Dr. Spenser’s paper on the behavior of dissipative systems with high negative feedback are interesting. But they are not complete. Detecting warming over the area of the earth is extremely difficult, I agree. But detecting it in the polar regions is easy: (a) the signal is not noisy with increasing urbanization; (b) the observed warming is much higher, yielding stronger signal to noise in than area. It’s a phenomenon that must be addressed by any climatological theory.

  76. ren says:

    Currently, a very strong rain in Oroville.

  77. Tim Rhyne says:

    Hang in there, Dr. Roy. There are millions of us who appreciate your work. Such diatribes don’t convince anyone, but still, no one wants to be on the receiving end.

    My daughter will be starting at UAH this fall studying Biology. Do you teach any classes that would be a good elective for her? I want her properly educated!

  78. That is crazy . I would never talk that way. Crazy!

  79. Rick Jafrate says:

    Dr. Roy, I didn’t realize how popular you are. 😉 Your fan mail reminds me just how boring life would be without morons.

    The say there is an ancient Chinese curse that goes something like “May your life be interesting.”. It would appear that you have some how run afoul of the ancient Chinese. 🙂

    Thank you Dr. Roy for your effort and perseverance in defense of sound scientific principles.

  80. carey says:

    Dr. Roy

    I am a long time admirer of your work; this post reminds me of comedians who resort to bad language in their routines to try to get laughs in lieu of writing well thought out comedy. ‘F’ bombing is hardly a vehicle for having rational discourse when reasonable people disagree. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way things are done today–screaming, cursing, protesting, with no concern about data, facts, or history. Whomever screams and protests the loudest wins. We cannot even depend on the data points our government institutions produce in response to ever changing political winds.

    It makes no sense to invest trillions of dollars chasing CO2 reductions if the result is unknown, negligible, or unknowable. I would rather see the $ spent on the poorest of the poor directly–housing, water, food, power, etc etc.

    Keep up the good fight!

    Carey

    • David Appell says:

      carey says:
      “It makes no sense to invest trillions of dollars chasing CO2 reductions if the result is unknown, negligible, or unknowable.”

      The US invests trillions of dollars a decade in its military, despite knowing when, or even if, any of that might be needed or necessary.

      Remember Cheney’s 1% doctrine?

      Global warming — already taking place and guaranteed to continue — is much more certain than any next war.

      • WizGeek says:

        @Appell: Let’s stay with scientific argument. Moral Relativism has no place here. Notwithstanding, the Preamble’s “…provide for the common defense…” is a constitutional mandate for our republic’s security.

        When someone discovers or explains the heat source-sink mechanism that causes glacials and interglacials, then we’ll have more accurate science to discuss instead of conjecturing and pontificating over the limited timelines oddly rooted at 1860 as well as the continually fudged IPCC climate models that remain significantly divergent from observed temperature trends.

        • David Appell says:

          Glacials and interglacials (during the Quaternary) are mostly due to Milankovitch cycles, and particularly (but not only) solar insolation at 65 degrees North. And feedbacks from changes, including in the carbon cycle.

          • WizGeek says:

            Excellent, David! We’re making progress. When will eccentricity, obliquity, precession, geomagnetic reversals, and solar magnetic activity be incorporated into climate models?

          • David Appell says:

            Why should they be incorporated into climate models?

            The shortest period of the Milankovitch cycles is about 20,000 years — it hardly changes at all over a century, which is the time period most climate models are addressing.

          • Lewis says:

            Wiz Geek:

            The answer is: only those inputs which produce the desired outputs will be included. The inputs will be manipulated until the correct outputs are produced. Those who oppose this method will not be included and will be, instead, ostracized and persecuted.

          • WizGeek says:

            @Appell: It’s more than just the Milankovitch Cycles. Any selected century could be riding the wave of an MC effect that’s either trending upward or downward. The intra-century anomalies currently measured may amount to relatively short term noise rather than significant long term trends. It’s certainly worth analysis given the drastic global impact of MCs.

          • David Appell says:

            Wizgeek:

            Do you know what Milankovitch cycle changes are right now?

            Someone with a spreadsheet on them just showed this to me today.

            About 0.003 W/m2/yr.

            Wanna compare that to the GHGs?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis says:
            “The answer is: only those inputs which produce the desired outputs will be included.”

            What inputs are missing?

  81. Brian says:

    I love his phrase “natural climate engineering”. It infers an intelligence in nature that does not exist. We may next hear from him about bacterial emotionalism.

    • Rhee says:

      Are you sure he’s not an adherent of the Intelligent Design perspective?

      • Brian says:

        Not sure about his/her/other’s belief system but intelligent design seems to refer to a starting point while natural climate engineering appears to be ongoing. If I am wrong and intelligent design is an ongoing phenomenom, then we are effectivly absolved of any responsibility in life and this persons rant is meaningless.
        I have thought a bit more about this “natural climate engineering” thing and, because much of the ecosystem is driven by microorganisms, we sure are lucky that those little boogers are such good engineers.

    • Climate engineering is the biggest fattest hoax on this planet along with man mad global warming. The only reason plains release so called “chemtrails” is because as a plain decents the hot fuel from the jet engine mixes with the much cooler air creating water vapor droplets. Don’t know how people are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit. Billions of dollars made off this crap just like the man made global warming hoax. It’s all shit to scare people with as well as government funding. Take the scam for what it is and don’t believe in any of it!

  82. Scott Manhart says:

    Dr Spencer:

    I would have that framed and hang it next to your PHd from UW. Credentials like this are hard to earn.

  83. wert says:

    Pardon me, but I hope shit hits the fan.

  84. David Appell says:

    No excuse for anyone mailing anyone such an email that Roy received. (I’ve received some similar over the years, but from deniers). Even worse, some climate scientists receive death threats, even, in the case of one, an envelope with white powder in it….

    • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

      Appell,
      You could add to your credibility by stopping use of the obnoxious ‘deniers’ label. It’s a bit like people calling you ‘a wild-eyed green nutcake who is disconnected from reality.’

      • David Appell says:

        I think the word “deniers” fits most of those here.

        And people have called me all kinds of names. Have at it.

        • WizGeek says:

          @Appell: “I think the word deniers fits most of those here.”

          The issues with your assertion are:
          1. The label “denier” is a vague and likely inaccurate label that doesn’t clearly denote what’s being denied;
          2. Most of “those” here aren’t a homogeneous demographic of scientific thought;
          3. The use of labels to fragment and demonize a group is #13 in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” which you seem to be quite adept at employing in this blog. 😉

          Wait–was that an implied label I just applied? 😮

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Steve,

        It doesn’t matter what you call him, or indeed, what he calls himself.

        As far as Mother Nature is concerned, he’s just another deluded bumbling buffoon – following the lead of other glassy eyed cultists such as Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, et al.

        If his credibility was doubled, it would still be zero. All part of the rich tapestry of life, giving we realists a grand opportunity to have a good laugh at the pretensions of self appointed climatological dunderheads.

        Ah, the schadenfreude! Of course, I’m assuming that nobody eventually figures out a way to make thermometers hotter by the judicious use of CO2. Maybe even the US Government might give the matter some thought, and divert climate research funds elsewhere. Maybe even into maintaining dams, bridges, highways, and so on.

        Who knows what might happen?

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          MF wrote:
          “Im assuming that nobody eventually figures out a way to make thermometers hotter by the judicious use of CO2.”

          You’re assumption is wrong — we’ve already done this.

          It was already determined by Callendar in 1938.

          “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature,” G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society v64 Issue 275 pp 223-240 (April 1938).

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/abstract

          Though our emissions have not been “judicious….”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            It’s not surprising that Callendar never actually succeeded in performing an experiment to warm anything using CO2. Just like every other so called climatologist has failed.

            He probably noticed that temperatures drop at night – regardless of the amount of his supposed “sky radiation”!

            One might just as likely claim that the extreme temperatures occurring in the arid sandy deserts are due to the magical heating properties of sand! Or are they due to to CO2?

            After all, shine a heat lamp on sand, and it gets very hot Hotter than a bottle of CO2 even! Must be due to the global warming properties of sand! If you believe that, there’s probably a village somewhere missing its idiot.

            Maybe you could write to NASA or the EPA, asking to be put in charge. Good luck.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Its not surprising that Callendar never actually succeeded in performing an experiment to warm anything using CO2. Just like every other so called climatologist has failed.”

            It’s impossible to do “experiments” in climate science, because there is no control-Earth to compare against.

            How long’s it going to take until you understand this??

            But targeted observations have been done, and they support AGW:

            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/

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “He probably noticed that temperatures drop at night regardless of the amount of his supposed sky radiation!”

            But, in the absence of sunlight, why don’t they drop to very far, to, say, dark-side-of-the-Moon temperatures like 95 K?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            The glassy eyed cultists claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is raising the temperature of the Earth day by day, year by year, century by century. Now you claim that the heating powers of CO2 cannot be demonstrated.

            I agree. It seems that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, CO2 and sunlight notwithstanding. Most people accept that winter is colder than summer, and that temperatures fall at night – CO2 notwithstanding!

            How amazing is that!

            But what the hell – it’s a free world! Feel free to roast, bake, broil or toast yourself. Move to Death Valley or the Libyan Desert if you like. None of that nasty GHG water vapour to be found – that’s why it’s so hot!

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You foolishly asked –

            “But, in the absence of sunlight, why dont they drop to very far, to, say, dark-side-of-the-Moon temperatures like 95 K?”

            Are you truly seeking knowledge, or attempting a foolish Warmist gotcha? You claim to have a PhD, so I assume you have at least a kindergarten understanding of radiative physics. If you tell me what problems you are having with basic radiative transfer equations, I will endeavour to help.

            Are you confused by the fact that removing an external source of energy from an object may result in cooling? I’m assuming that you’re merely confused, rather than attempting to be gratuitously malicious. Please let me know if my assumption is incorrect.

            Cheers.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Mike,
            I believe DA was arguing about the fact that by night the temperature doesn’t fall so much as it does on the moon and I think he is well aware of radiative transfers.
            But it seems to me that he completely misses the point that the whole atmospheric mass is keeping we warmer by night just because it’s in continuous thermal exchange with the surface.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • WizGeek says:

            @Appell: “Feldman et al: ‘First Direct Observation…’ apparently hasn’t been peer reviewed yet (in Nature?), has only had an announcement (in Nature?), and only shows correlation, not causation. They “attribute” the correlation’s causation to CO2 without proof.

          • David Appell says:

            WizGeek: Of course Feldman et al was peer reviewed — it wouldn’t have appeared in Nature if it wasn’t.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Now you claim that the heating powers of CO2 cannot be demonstrated.”

            The “heating powers” of CO2 were determined by Tyndall.

            I said you can’t do an *experiment* to prove AGW, because there is no second, unperturbed Earth to compare to. That’s obvious.

            But here’s another targeted observation: We’re putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the Earth is warming.

          • David Appell says:

            MF wrote:
            “It seems that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years,”

            Where are those data?

            “CO2 and sunlight notwithstanding. Most people accept that winter is colder than summer, and that temperatures fall at night CO2 notwithstanding!”

            Yes, CO2 isn’t the sole influence on temperature. Congratulations on that discovery, which appears on page 1 of climate textbooks.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Are you confused by the fact that removing an external source of energy from an object may result in cooling?”

            You misunderstood the question.

            Why doesn’t the dark side of the planet drop much more in the absence of sunlight? By up to a couple hundred Kelvin….

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo PORZIO says:
            “But it seems to me that he completely misses the point that the whole atmospheric mass is keeping we warmer by night just because its in continuous thermal exchange with the surface.”

            How is the atmospheric mass keeping the night surface warmer?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi David,
            the gases in the atmosphere have mass, so they are heated by the surface during the day via conduction/convection/diffusion and they heat back the radiant surface during the night the same way by conduction/convection/diffusion at the surface (retarding its cooling, not warming it of course).
            How much the cooling is retarded depends on density, but this is valid for GHG radiative effect too.
            The tiny density of CO2 can’t do too much compared to the density of the whole atmospheric gases.
            The kinetic energy held by the whole atmospheric gases molecules is much more than the photonic molecular energy held by the GHGs only.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo says:
            “The tiny density of CO2 cant do too much compared to the density of the whole atmospheric gases.”

            Care to prove that?

            Energy balance:
            https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            David,
            how do you think the atmosphere stands up there?

            That graph don’t has it just because those who did it never had care of how the gases stand up there and don’t collapse to the ground under the gravity force.
            Are you aware that on a oK planet any gases collapse at the ground?
            If yes, then you should know that the only reason gases can fly around a planet is that the planet is exchanging continuously its heat with them, keeping the gaseous molecules up against the gravity.

            That energy exchange is continuosly done and at the sea level keeps a mass that create a pressure of abt 1kg/m^2 up in the sky. Firing the molecules up to abt 13km surely remove energy from the surface that is completely returned back by gravity (except for about 50% of the energy convertet in photons and radiated by the GHGs). I never tried to estimate how much it is (this is not my job), but I would like to see someone who works in the climate field considering to take the time to estimate how much energy is continuously exchanged for keeping those molecule up there, and put it in that graph.

            you wrote “Care to prove that?”
            What it wonders me is that you ask for verification to people like me, who you well know are not working in the field, while you accept the graphs produced by scientist in the field who never take care of really prove them.

            Again: “modelling” is not “proving”.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo: So you really don’t have any proof that The tiny density of CO2 cant do too much compared to the density of the whole atmospheric gases.

            That’s what I suspected. Why then did you make the claim?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi David,
            “So you really dont have any proof that The tiny density of CO2 cant do too much compared to the density of the whole atmospheric gases.

            Thats what I suspected. Why then did you make the claim?”

            On the other side (yours), where is the “proof” that any of your graph reflects the incidence of CO2 on our climate?

            My claim is based on the basic fact that any energy finally is transformed to heat.
            So, claiming that during night the Earth without GHGs cools tending to 0K or little more (the outer space equivalent temperature), at least doesn’t take account of the energy contained in the whole atmosphere which instead is a heat source for the planet system during the night, and for that must account for those +33K missing planet average temperature, that some climatologists claim is fully due to CO2.

            But note that I wrote that is a “basic fact that ANY energy finally is transformed to heat”, so it’s the same for the bunch of energy contained in the oceans to keep the water liquid, that it is an another source of heat to keep the Tmin higher during the night.

            No, David if you are a real open minded guy then you couldn’t really think that that 400ppm of atmospheric matter is the culprit of those +33K of planet averaged temperature.

            But, something tell me that you’ll never admit it, so this is the last time I spend my time with you about that.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo wrote:
            “On the other side (yours), where is the proof that any of your graph reflects the incidence of CO2 on our climate?”

            Massimo, have you ever read a climate science textbook?

            Or any of the founding papers of radiative transfer?

            You should at least read Spencer Weart’s historical summary:

            http://history.aip.org/climate/Radmath.htm

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo wrote:
            “No, David if you are a real open minded guy then you couldnt really think that that 400ppm of atmospheric matter is the culprit of those +33K of planet averaged temperature.”

            Where is your proof of this?

            Ozone concentrations are far smaller than CO2’s, about 0.1 ppm (220 DU), even in the ozone layer. Without that tiny concentration, we’d all be dead.

            How do you explain that in light of your “tiny concentration” hypothesis?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            As already said, I don’t want to spend other time with one like you that can’t neither imagine the difference between the effect of ozone on UV and the effect of heat capacity of the ocean water in delaying the cooling of globe.

            So, this is my very last reply on this.

            Ozone is the only one efficient shield against UV, CO2 is concurrent with a lot of denser elements in delaying the energy flows at the surface.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            BTW,
            David, just because I missed to read your previous post about Spencer Weart.

            I’m not arguing about CO2 effect per se, it’s its incidence on cooling delaying the argument of these posts, because you wrote:

            “But, in the absence of sunlight, why dont they drop to very far, to, say, dark-side-of-the-Moon temperatures like 95 K?”

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo, you’re argument against AGW was based only on the fact that CO2 is a trace gas, and nothing in such a low concentration can have any effect.

            The example of ozone disproves this “low concentration” theory. As do many other examples.

            Science is often counterintuitive. That’s one of the reasons why it is so powerful.

          • AmenMassimo PORZIO says:

            Amen

  85. Snowready says:

    JDHuffman I don’t respond to trolls

  86. Stevek says:

    Such is the case with Internet. People that acted like this in person would face consequences. Probably even some of physical if said to wrong person. Even if not physical they would face social consequence and get a bad reputation.

  87. ren says:

    Is this winter would soon end? I say that not.
    Visible is the next wave in the stratosphere and a sudden rise in temperature in the stratosphere. Look below.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.png
    The temperature in the Arctic very low.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  88. ren says:

    “It’s not in the agency’s mind that Antelope, Lake Davis and Frenchman are even connected to Oroville,” said Robert A. Meacher, Portola city manager and former Plumas County supervisor representing Indian Valley. “We need better coordination in the operation of the entire Feather River system.”

    Michael Jackson, a Quincy-based attorney for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said DWR management of its upper watershed reservoirs has always suffered from “benign neglect.” Recently it’s been compounded by “drought mentality,” he said.

    When the rains began this month, Antelope levels were too high to allow controlled releases, he said. “They were so concerned with the last five years of drought they weren’t paying attention. And Indian Valley is paying the price,” said Jackson.
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/weather/article133818604.html

  89. ren says:

    This is not the end of the precipitation in California.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00873/gl0iaexguv8x.png
    Thus is born a change of the “trend”.

  90. Tim Spence says:

    David Appell, why are you so bitter and obnoxious, is there an underlying cause?

  91. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, I just finished an article that shows how to use this data in a court case against the climate alarmists. I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts.
    Climate Science on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      CO2islife…”Climate Science on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists”

      Have not had time to read and digest your article but I took note of your beef with the abuse of confidence levels. That’s what got me interested.

      Years ago I read the iconic IPCC statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. Immediately I wanted to know the derivation of such a confidence level as applied to opinion. I Googled it and one of my first hits was to comments by Richard Lindzen.

      Lindzen claimed that the statement came from the Summary for Policymakers in AR4. He claimed further that the statement represented the opinion of the 50 lead authors who publish the Summary. The main report made no such claim with a good proportion of the reviewers wanting to wait to see what happened.

      Lindzen also revealed that the 50 writing the Summary have the power to amend the main report. In essence, the main thrust of the IPCC comes from 50 politically appointed lead authors. The 2500 reviewers have little or no say in the final outcome of the main report even though many protest and are ignored.

      To show you how stupid this gets, after the 2012 review, the IPCC admitted there had been a 15 year warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012 then upped the confidence level to a 95% likelihood that humans are causing the warming.

      What warming?

      If that is not evidence in itself that the IPCC are corrupt I don’t know what evidence is required.

    • barry says:

      Gordon,

      Years ago I read the iconic IPCC statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. Immediately I wanted to know the derivation of such a confidence level as applied to opinion. I Googled it and one of my first hits was to comments by Richard Lindzen.

      Lindzen claimed that the statement came from the Summary for Policymakers in AR4. He claimed further that the statement represented the opinion of the 50 lead authors who publish the Summary. The main report made no such claim….

      Lindzen has misinformed you.

      On the Chapter on attribution of causes of recent climate change, it says:

      “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis
      technique.”

      And

      “Since the TAR, there has been an increased emphasis on partitioning the observed warming into contributions from greenhouse gas increases and other anthropogenic and natural factors. These studies lead to the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing has very likely been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years, and account for the possibility that the agreement between simulated and observed temperature changes could be reproduced by different combinations of external forcing.”

      IPCC AR4 Ch9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, p 665

      The term very likely is quantified in IPCC AR4 thus:

      Very likely: > 90% probability

      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html

      Either Lindzen is wrong or you have misremembered his remarks.

    • ren says:

      “The National Weather Service reported that 1.69 inches of rain was recorded in the official rain gauge near Sacramento State. The steady afternoon rain broke a record of 1.21 set in 1914.

      Rainfall this month totals 7.90 inches in Sacramento. February, normally a wet month, averages 3.69 inches.

      The past two months have been very rainy. A total of 9.85 inches fell in January.

      With plenty of February still to come, a total of 17.75 inches has fallen in two months. Thats nearly a seasons average in January and February. The seasons total in Sacramento stands at 27.26 inches.

      The water year in California runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The wettest year on record in Sacramento is 1982-1983, when it rained about 37 inches over the course of the water year.

      About 20 inches of rain falls in a typical water year in Sacramento.”

    • ren says:

      Fortunately, another rainy system, which reaches the northern California will bring more snow.

  92. Jimmy V. says:

    A clear demonstration of why society needs lawyers. To make the case for their client who cannot do so rationally, because they cannot control their emotions.

  93. Kenny says:

    When the lead argument is Pascal’s Climate Change Wager…you know it’s all downhill from there.

    • David Appell says:

      Have you ever bought insurance? Have you ever taken measures to reduce risk? Have you ever prepared for a change you know is coming?

      • Chris Hanley says:

        False analogy.
        Buying insurance doesnt reduce the risk of events, it compensates for losses suffered due to them.
        Security measures, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, air bags etc. etc. reduce everyday risks.
        The analogues for climate risks would be stronger structures, sea walls, weather satellites and the like.

        • David Appell says:

          I wrote about reducing risk…. But at some point, insurance companies will no longer sell policies to cover at-risk homeowners. If their home becomes uninhabitable due to sea level rise, I fully expect the government to be, in essence, the insurer of last resort. It’s going to cost taxpayers a great deal of money.

          • Chris Hanley says:

            The closest parallel to demands for public funds to avert dangerous Climate Change would be a Chicago-style protection racket pay up or this might happen run by climate change practitioners and their rent-seeking hangers-on.

          • David Appell says:

            Some responsible Republicans just recently put forth a carbon tax plan. A carbon tax-and-dividend, where all taxes collected are distributed back on an equal per capita basis, would see about 60% of US families, and almost all of the poor, get back more in dividends than they pay in taxes. The less CO2 you emit, the more you get back.

          • Chris Hanley says:

            Interesting idea, presumably thats CO2 from energy use and not breathing.
            Energy use by the less well-off is not a luxury, it is relatively inflexible like food and basic shelter whereas for the relatively well-off the cost of energy is an unimportant issue.
            The cost of collection and administration would be enormous, creative accounting, corruption fraud and racketeering would flourish.
            Because of inflexibility at one end and indifference at the other the effect on CO2 emissions would be minimal and likely perverse outcomes in some poor families affecting child welfare.
            Heres a better idea that would work: just ration energy use by individuals and see how that goes over in the Pacific Palisades or Upper East Side.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Hanley says:
            “The cost of collection and administration would be enormous, creative accounting, corruption fraud and racketeering would flourish.”

            An assumption with no evidence or proof.

            Alaska distributes its annual oil payments without any problems.

            THis is a market solution. Are you opposed to market solutions?

            “Because of inflexibility at one end and indifference at the other the effect on CO2 emissions would be minimal”

            Prove it. James Hansen, citing economic studies, says carbon emissions would be reduced by 30% in the first decade.

            “…and likely perverse outcomes in some poor families affecting child welfare.”

            Absurd. The dividend payments would be a help to poor families, helping to relieve poverty.

        • David Appell says:

          Chris Hanley says:
          “Interesting idea, presumably thats CO2 from energy use and not breathing.”

          Breathing is carbon neutral. You should know that by now.

          (Denier Myth #1)

          • Chris Hanley says:

            Thats a very curious concept of market.
            A market system is one in which production and prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses free from government intervention.
            That cad & dividend idea, a dressed up carbon (dioxide) tax, has been around for at least ten years and rejected by the US Congress in 2009 good luck with the new president.

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong — the US Congress never took up the issue of carbon tax-and-dividend.

            There is no “competition” if no insurers will sell in a market, whether it is about health care or sea level rise.

            These cases demonstrate a failure of the (so-called) free market, and the necessity of government intervention. As in health care, the government will be the sea level rise insurer of last resort, which means it’s taxpayers who will pay for all those losses.

          • Chris Hanley says:

            Shifting sands, this is pointless.
            Now and for the foreseeable future CO2 emissions are a proxy for economic activity.
            At present the only way to cut CO2 emissions is to reduce economic activity by increasing the cost of energy with a corresponding significant reduction in economic activity, increased job losses, hardship etc. for virtually no theoretic reduction in the global average temperature.
            Why not admit it rather than dancing around that hard fact.

          • Lewis says:

            Chris: Facts are not play here – economic control is. AGW alarmism is a totalitarian gambit to gain economic control

            You will see this play out in Washington as Trump forces slowly gain control and weed the paper shufflers out into the real world. It will take a few years, but I believe the people being put in place are up to it.

            If not, kiss this country as you know it good bye.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis says:
            “AGW alarmism is a totalitarian gambit to gain economic control”

            How exactly is that going to happen?

            With sustainable energy, you’ll still plug your toaster into the same outlet. While not spewing pollution that changes the climate for the next 100,000 years.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Hanley says:
            “At present the only way to cut CO2 emissions is to reduce economic activity by increasing the cost of energy with a corresponding significant reduction in economic activity, increased job losses, hardship etc. for virtually no theoretic reduction in the global average temperature.”

            Where is your evidence?

            “US Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Jobs By 5 To 1,” CleanTechnica, 2/1/17

            https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/01/us-clean-energy-jobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-jobs-5-1/

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Hanley says:
            “At present the only way to cut CO2 emissions is to reduce economic activity by increasing the cost of energy with a corresponding significant reduction in economic activity….”

            The data show this is a wrong assumption.

            Since Jan 1973 (when EIA data starts):

            ….US per capita energy consumption had dropped by 16%.

            ….per capita CO2 emissions have dropped by 29%.

            ….and yet per capita real GDP has risen by 102%.

          • No Fan But Can Respect says:

            David Appell,
            I keep telling myself not to get involved in outrageous remarks because a fanatic does not want to engage in reasonable discussion. Yet, once in a while, I am drawn to comment in case some third-party reader is not knowledgeable about the issue.

            Yes, energy use per $ GDP has gone down, and CO2 emissions per $ GDP has gone done; but those movements have little to do with renewable energy.

            As an economy developments, the products and service are less energy intense. Also, the U.S. has joined the rest of the world in shipping energy-intensive industries overseas. That makes our economy look less energy-intensive, but it increases real pollution, and that shift has been responsible for a large part of the decrease in Arctic Ice.

            When “renewables” are a low portion of the energy mix, a sizeable economy likes ours can handle the renewable subsidies which are 100 to 1000 times as large as the per BTU subsidy of fossil fuel. However, there will come a time when such high levels of subsidies will have a detrimental effect.

          • David Appell says:

            NoFan: When up can control yourself enough to avoid calling me names, get back to me and I’ll address your technical and scientific points.

  94. ren says:

    Oroville dam still has to drop large amounts of water.
    http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/queryF?ORO

  95. Vangel says:

    Following Feynman’s approach will hurt the financial prospects of ‘scientist-activists’. Where is the incentive to be honest and true to the scientific method?

    • David Appell says:

      If he were alive today, Feynman would be first-in-line warning about anthropogenic climate change, and have some choice words for politicians and others who denied or dismissed it.

      “Where is the incentive to be honest and true to the scientific method?”

      What is the incentive for you to be honest and true in your own work and life?

      • Chris Hanley says:

        Lol, perhaps you could ask him who will win the French presidential election (Macron 6/4) at the next seance.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “The first thing hed ask you is what you mean by anthropogenic climate change. Do you mean anthropogenic global warming?”

          No, I mean what I wrote — anthropogenic climate change.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”If he were alive today, Feynman would be first-in-line warning about anthropogenic climate change, and have some choice words for politicians and others who denied or dismissed it”.

        You obviously did not know much about Feynman or his relationship to reality. The first thing he’d ask you is what you mean by anthropogenic climate change. Do you mean anthropogenic global warming?

        If so, how do you account for anthropogenic climate change when there has been no average anthropogenic warming the past 18 years.

        When asked about quantum theory he replied that it works but no one knows why. Max Planck, Schrodinger, and Einstein could tell you why not but no quantum theorist can tell you why.

        Same with anthropogenic warming. No one can tell you why it should work. Climate change is a politically-correct, idiotic reference to an illusion dreamed up by climate modelers.

        • David Appell says:

          GR wrote:
          “If so, how do you account for anthropogenic climate change when there has been no average anthropogenic warming the past 18 years.”

          Why do you keep repeating this lie?

          I can only conclude it’s because you are a liar with no ethics whatsoever.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Same with anthropogenic warming. No one can tell you why it should work.”

          A whole lot of us understand it very well.

          It’s a shame you don’t. You should read more and study harder.

  96. ren says:

    The mayor of San Jose acknowledged that the city failed to properly notify residents to evacuate during a flood emergency early Wednesday when some people said they got their first notice with a knock on their door from a firefighter.

    City officials ordered more than 14,000 residents to leave their homes as water from swollen Coyote Creek flooded homes and temporarily shut down a portion of a major freeway.

    A woman is directed to a safe zone by rescue crews after being rescued by boat from a flooded neighborhood Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2017, in San Jose, Calif. Rescuers chest-deep in water steered boats carrying dozens of people, some with babies and pets, from a San Jose neighborhood inundated by water from an overflowing creek Tuesday.
    A woman is directed to a safe zone by rescue crews after being rescued by boat from a flooded neighborhood Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2017, in San Jose, Calif. Rescuers chest-deep in water steered boats carrying dozens of people, some with babies and pets, from a San Jose neighborhood inundated by water from an overflowing creek Tuesday. Marcio Jose Sanchez AP Photo
    “If the first time a resident is aware that they need to get out of their home is when they see a firefighter in a boat, that’s a failure,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said at a news conference. “We are assessing what happened in that failure.”

    Liccardo declined to go into detail, saying there would be time for reflection after the emergency was over.

    “We’ve got to address the needs of the families who have been displaced first. We’ll have a lot of time to analyze what went wrong,” he said.
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article134194604.html

  97. ren says:

    Some of the concerns are due to the precariously full Don Pedro Reservoir, which captures water from the Tuolumne River, a key tributary of the San Joaquin. The reservoir, which has more than twice the capacity of Folsom Lake, remained close to cresting Sunday. If it goes over the top of its spillway, it would send a gush of water that could overwhelm the small Tuolumne River channel, flood part of Modesto and cause the San Joaquin to rise.

    Based on Sundays forecasts, the spillway could start sending out releases as early as Tuesday, said Brandon McMillan, a spokesman for the Turlock Irrigation District, which manages New Don Pedro Dam.

    Of course everythings based on the weather, and that can change, McMillan said.

    Three and a half hours to the north, engineers at troubled Oroville Dam said Sunday that the lake is ready to handle the influx of water from the approaching storms.
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/weather/article133714379.html

  98. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Christy, I just posted the following message over on WUWT. Do you have a link to the satellite data download. I’d like to run a regression against CO2. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Mr. Watts, I may have a great project for your Blog. The IPCC Models provide the evidence to shoot down the AGW Theory. The IPCC Models most likely have a very very very low R-Squared, that is why they never publish the R-Squared of the models. You can host a project to beat the IPCC Climate Model R-Squareds. All you would need to do is create a repository for valid climate data. Dr. Spencer and Christy could provide the Satellite Data, Dr. Willie Soon could provide the solar data, someone else could provide the data for El Ninos and Ninas, others could provide data for clouds, albido, etc etc. The CO2 data is readily available. Once all the data sets are collected, multivariable regressions could be run on the data to identify the most significant variables, as well as establishing the R-Squared for the Temp=f(CO2) model. Once that data is collected, and the models run, it would provide great evidence for a court case. The Climate Alarmists would have to defend why a bunch of bloggers were able to create a climate model with a much higher R-Squared than the IPCC was able to do after spending billion of dollars. The models are the key to debunking this nonsense, and your website as the ability to reach the people that are needed to pull this off.

    Here is a more detailed explanation of the project.
    Climate Science on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

    • No Fan But Can Respect says:

      CO2isLife,

      Perhaps some background information will help you as you think about your proposal.
      There have been many attempts to run regression analyses on temperature trends to see what factors get the largest R-Squared.
      More than a decade ago, the largest R-squared came from regressing against PDO and AMO indices.
      Regressing against certain measures of solar activity such as TSI did not produce outstanding results — although some scientists argue that TSI is not THE solar measure that should be used in analyzing the sun’s impact on climate.
      And regressing against CO2 levels also did not produce good results.
      However, two important points.
      First, the historical record of the earth’s temperatures has been altered in governmental documents, and CO2 has become a much better predictor of that altered temperature record because the altered record portrays a much more steady increase in temperature rather than cyclical patterns.
      Second, to explore human-induced warming, the IPCC and cohorts emphasize that regression analysis must include both CO2 and aerosols. By arbitrarily and conveniently choosing entries for aerosols, they are able to get a very good fit — a high R-squared — for explaining temperature trends via human activity. Needless to say, their choice of inputs for aerosols (which in effect are dummy variables) has been very controversial for analysts who do not blindly accept on an a priori basis that the problem is human-based.

      • David Appell says:

        “First, the historical record of the earths temperatures has been altered in governmental documents”

        Do you remember when Richard Muller formed the BEST project?

        He did that because he was suspicious of the temperature time series from the various groups.

        He included a Nobel Laureate on his team, and a bunch of young hard-working programmers

        Do you know what they found, after doing a vigorous analysis?

        The same results as everyone else.

        With temperature correlated most closely to atmo CO2. (But, know, they didn’t do a linear test, because that isn’t what the theory expects.)

        Try testing T to ln(CO2).

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Do you remember when Richard Muller formed the BEST project? He did that because he was suspicious of the temperature time series from the various groups. He included a Nobel Laureate on his team, and a bunch of young hard-working programmers…”

          Don’t forget, Al Gore is a Nobel laureate.

          You failed to mention Judith Curry, one of the co-authors of the Best study, and her opinion that Mueller changed the results to suit himself. Since he did that she has distanced herself from the study.

          There are people in high places who are playing the catastrophic climate change game, going along to get along. John Christy has already indicated the extent of that based on his experience at IPCC reviews as a lead author and reviewer.

          NOAA has recently been exposed and there’s no excuse for such shenanigans in science. It was bad enough in the Climategate email scandal when top climate scientists were caught revealing their dishonesty never mind one of the top scientific institutes in the world being in on the charade.

          • David Appell says:

            Judith Curry vs a Nobel Laureate? (One I got to spend a day with, interviewing.) I’ll take the prize winner.

            In what way has NOAA been exposed, Gordon?

          • David Appell says:

            John Bates said, there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

            “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

            (AP)

          • David Appell says:

            not allowed to provide a link.

          • barry says:

            David, if a link won’t post, convert it at tinyurl and repost. It will now be accepted by this blog.

            http://tinyurl.com/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”John Bates said, there was no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious. ”

            That’s your interpretation. He revealed that NOAA had ignored temperature collected by the old method at sea by dipping a bucket of water in the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it. That water was up to 1C colder than the temperature of the water at the ship water intakes yet NOAA went with the warmer water.

            NOAA are cheats, pure and simple.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Judith Curry vs a Nobel Laureate?”

            Like I said, Al Gore is a Nobel Laureate, so is Obama. When it comes to climate science, I’ll go with Judith.

            I have already shown you how NOAA manipulated the data to make it look warmer and you keep coming back and asking how they did it.

            Might as well talk to a wall, I’d get more sense out of it.

          • barry says:

            DAJohn Bates said, there was no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.

            Thats your interpretation.

            No that’s a pretty accurate representation of his own words.

            “Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was

            And he holds up a mirror to you.

            And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change… “I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people, he says.”

          • barry says:

            Quotes got swallowed by this blog. Bates’ own words were:

            “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was”

          • barry says:

            Actually, David quoted Bates completely accurately.

            From the AP interview:

            However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

            “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

            Associated Press

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            He revealed that NOAA had ignored temperature collected by the old method at sea by dipping a bucket of water in the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it. That water was up to 1C colder than the temperature of the water at the ship water intakes yet NOAA went with the warmer water.

            1. This was not done in the Karl et al study.

            2. Karl et al did not manipulate any data. They took existing datasets and simply combined them, including buckets, ship intake and buoys.

            3. Bucket measurements and ship-intake have an absolute difference. Rebaselining to remove or reduce the absolute difference makes no difference to the respective trends.

            Understanding this is pretty simple.

            If you have 10 measurements beginning with a value of 1 and increasing by a value 1 per data point per year, then you have a trend of 10 per decade.

            1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 = increase of 1 per year

            If you increase each data point by a value of 1, then the resulting trend is… 10 per decade (1 per year).

            2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 = increase of 1 per year

            So if buckets measurements are rebaselined to reduce the absolute difference between bucket/ships anomalies this does not affect the trend.

            This is also what was done with the difference between buoys and ship intake. Trends are unaffected.

            In fact, NOT doing this gives you spurious trends. Here’s how, based on your figure:

            the old method at sea by dipping a bucket of water in the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it. That water was up to 1C colder than the temperature of the water at the ship water intakes

            Top line is ship fictional intake measurements, bottom line is buckets.

            2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 = increase of 1 per year
            1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 = increase of 1 per year (bucket measurements were phased out, used less over time)

            In our hypothetical we know that the trends are the same. We do that deliberately so we can test if there is any change if we fail to match baselines.

            Let’s combine those numbers without rebaselining. We’ll do a simple average.

            1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7, 8, 9, 10 = increase of 0.83 per year

            So we ‘know’ that both datasets have a trend of 1 per year – because we set up this experiment with those trends. And we see what happens if we fail to rebaseline one or the other to match. We get the wrong answer.

          • barry says:

            If that’s too hard, this should be intuitively obvious.

            Young Jimmy is 4 feet tall. He grows to a height of 4’3″ in a year.
            Rate of growth = 3 inches per year.

            Young Timmy is 4’6″ tall. He grows to a height of 4’9″ in a year.
            Rate of growth = 3 inches per year.

            According to you we’ve got the yearly trend per inches wrong because we failed to account the absolute difference in height.

          • barry says:

            To be fair, while the trend for each does not change, combining them would almost certainly come up with a result different from both (somewhere between them). Presumably it’s better to have more data than less. Karl et al used more data (including from buckets).

          • barry says:

            NOAA had ignored temperature collected by the old method at sea by dipping a bucket of water in the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it.

            Contrary to what you believe, Gordon, more bucket data was added (Karl et al didn’t do this themselves- they just used the data set with more bucket measurements). They didn’t ‘ignore it’. And including more bucket data made the trend warmer (by 0.03C/decade).

            Also, more weight was given to buoys than ship intakes and buckets for the period where these data overlap, because buoy data are considered more accurate.

            I get the impression that you read one side of the debate entirely (news articles and blogs),ignore the other side, and, more importantly, do not read the source material. If so, you are committing bias confirmation.

          • barry says:

            Might be worth acquainting yourself with the Karl paper before commenting further, Gordon.

            http://adam.curry.com/enc/20150607192230_science2015karlscience.aaa5632.pdf

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “DAJohn Bates said, there was no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.

            “Thats your interpretation.”

            No, it’s a DIRECT QUOTE from John Bates.

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-bates-story-is-over.html
            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

            You are denying reality.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            DAJohn Bates said, there was no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.

            Thats your interpretation.

            No, its a DIRECT QUOTE from John Bates, reported by the Associate Press.

            http://tinyurl.com/j2kqbub

            You are denying reality.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Best study, and her opinion that Mueller changed the results to suit himself.”

          She failed to prove that, write a letter to the journal editor, or publish a rebuttal. Doesn’t look like she stood behind he criticism.

          Even worse was Watts turning tail and running from the result he said beforehand he would accept.

          BTW, the BEST project’s Nobel Laureate was in physics. You can’t dismiss him by comparing to a Peace Prize winner.

          This just shows that some people’s positions aren’t in any way based on the data and evidence, but, like you, are ideological and political positions.

    • David Appell says:

      Roy gives links to their data every month with the report of the monthly anomaly.

    • David Appell says:

      No Fan But Can Respect says:
      “And regressing against CO2 levels also did not produce good results.”

      Try regressing against ln(CO2/CO2_0) or log2(CO2/CO2_0), where CO2_0 is the preindustrial level of CO2.

  99. Timo Soren says:

    I feel the need to apologize for (hu)mankind. But then I just have to read a little history to realize there is always a large percentage of such in the world.

    Thick skin is useful, as well as my grandfathers amazing selective hearing.

  100. Brad says:

    You should ask him what stocks he is recommending, and go short.😜

  101. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, would you run a regression of satellite temperature against the IPCC Model forecasts? No one ever publishes the R-Squardeds of these models. My bet is that it is 20 at best. If you aren’t interested, would you publish a link to the data and I’ll run them? I’ve been wanting to write an article on the topic.

  102. paul w shafer phd says:

    None of this explains the effects of1) increasing CO2 conc.in stratosphere from jets since 1958 nor 2) increasing microwave tropospheric heating since 1990 from cellphones on climate.

    • barry says:

      Nor does it explain the role of burgeoning road systems, body-heat addition from growing population or the effects of mating habits of jellyfish on global temperature. Sad!

      Or….

      That’s not the topic of the article and we can go elsewhere to discuss our pet theories.

  103. ren says:

    How much precipitation has fallen on Northern California this winter?

    So much that Squaw Valley expects to be open for skiing July 4.

    So much that Sacramentos rainfall has surpassed that of traditional rainy meccas like Seattle and Portland, Ore.

    So much that the U.S. Drought Monitor, a study produced weekly by scientists from multiple federal agencies, reported Thursday that only 17 percent of California is still gripped by drought.

    The drought, now at five years and running, wont officially end in California until Gov. Jerry Brown rescinds his drought emergency declaration. His aides have been careful to warn that areas south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta still suffer from substantial water deficits, particularly in the groundwater basins of the San Joaquin Valley.

    But after weeks of drenching rains, overtopped levees and a near-catastrophe at Lake Oroville, the states second largest reservoir, evidence that the drought is ending is piling up faster than the snows at Squaw Valley.

    Squaw and its sister resort, Alpine Meadows, announced Wednesday that they expect to be open during the Fourth of July. The announcement came on a day when workers were digging out chairlift terminals nearly buried in snow and clearing snow farther up the mountain because it threatened to trip people right out of their lift chairs.

    The company plans to keep its two Truckee-area resorts open until June, and at least one of them, likely Squaw Valley, will reopen on July 4, said spokeswoman Liesl Kenney.
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article134506439.html

    Still showing lack of humility towards of Mother Nature.

    • ren says:

      “In particular, Don Pedro reservoir in Tuolumne County was 100 percent full Thursday, according to the Department of Water Resources. That will create pressures on levees in the short term and for several weeks to come.

      With a giant snowpack waiting to melt this spring, Don Pedro is going to have to make some room to capture that, Lund said. So are all the other river reservoirs.

      Shasta Lake, the states largest reservoir, is holding 4.2 million acre-feet of water. Thats nearly 1 million more than is considered appropriate under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood-safety regulations. But Louis Moore, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which runs Shasta, said the bureau is confident the reservoir can release water quickly if necessary and operate safely.”

    • ren says:

      Jet stream forecast for California on February 27th.
      http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/17022406_jetstream_h72.gif

  104. barry says:

    Anyone who has referred to UAHv6 data to estimate trends and whatnot should be shutting the hell up about the Bates/Karl brouhaha.

    Bates’ complaint was that the data for a published study had not been properly archived, even though it was publicly available (just not where Bates thought it should have been).

    UAHv6 data is likewise available to the public, but the paper describing new methodology has not been published. It’s not operational data yet.

    So watch out if you’re criticizing Karl et al on transparency, that you’re not being a hypocrite.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”So watch out if youre criticizing Karl et al on transparency, that youre not being a hypocrite”.

      If you could be jailed for scientific misconduct, Karl would be in jail. You should be in jail for defending him. You don’t live in Botany Bay do you?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “If you could be jailed for scientific misconduct, Karl would be in jail”

        This is pure bullshit, libelous, you have no evidence whatsoever, and you should be ashamed of yourself for denigrating and insulting good people just because you don’t like or understand their scientific results.

        You’re exactly the type who give deniers their bad, laughable image.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…Karl was in charge of NOAA and they corrupted science by slashing 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 stations. Then they interpolated and homogenized the data using a model, from less than 1500 stations, to synthesize the missing stations.

          That is utter scientific misconduct and if you can’t see that you’re a diehard apologist.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “DAKarl was in charge of NOAA and they corrupted science by slashing 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 stations.”

            How did that “corrupt” science?

            How many worldwide stations are needed to accurately (enough) measure GMST? SHow your work.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Then they interpolated and homogenized the data using a model, from less than 1500 stations, to synthesize the missing stations.”

            This is required no matter how many stations there are.

            “That is utter scientific misconduct and if you cant see that youre a diehard apologist.”

            No, I don’t see it. Prove it, with science. How many temperature stations are needed?

        • barry says:

          Even though you’ve been shown the history you misrepresent it once again.

          Stations weren’t deliberately dropped. A project in the 1990s collated millions of data that were hand-written, adding a huge amount of data that was not on-stream to NOAA. When the project ended, the on-stream data kept coming.

          So, historical data that doesn’t get sent to NOAA in the format required to be automatically included in the stream was ADDED to the record. Nothing was ‘slashed’.

          It’s ironic – NOAA is blamed for doing precisely the opposite of what is claimed.

          Here’s the paper describing exactly what happened.

          Peterson and Vose (1997)

          Gordon, this time read the blummin’ thing. Then and only then will you understand that (historical, handwritten) data was ADDED, not slashed.

      • barry says:

        The extortionist sitting next to me in Long Bay pointed out that you didn’t address my point, Gordon.

        People of all persuasions on this site, including me, have been using the dataset (version 6) that Dr Spencer co-compiles. Dr Spencer blogs the time series based on it every month. The methods behind the dataset have not yet been published and are not available to the public. Karl et al methods and data have been in the public domain since the paper was published.

        As there is much less verification of UAHv6 in the public domain, have we been wrong to use it?

        And would not that make a hypocrite of anyone using UAHv6 while castigating Karl et al?

        • David Appell says:

          Good questions, barry. Don’t expect anyone here to go near them.

          Some people have accused Karl et al published in Science on 6/4/15 to influence the then-upcoming Paris Climate Conference in Nov-Dec 2015.

          But Karl et al had been in peer review since January of that year.

          UAH published their v6.0, calling it a beta edition, in late April 29, 2015. But there was (and still isn’t) any scientific documentation or paper on the changes. (High-level blog posts don’t count.) Maybe they were trying to influence Paris.

        • barry says:

          According to Roy, the paper has been accepted for publication.

      • Bindidon says:

        Shame on you, Gordon Robertson!

        Like so many people knowing about nearly nothing (there are a lot of) you just are able to vent your gall on honest people.

        You should be jailed for your thorough ignorance and misconduct.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Bindidon…”Like so many people knowing about nearly nothing…”

          I have no seen you offering objective rebuttals to any of the science I have presented. I am the first to admit I know nothing, being aware that knowledge prevents insight. If you are too full of yourself, like all the alarmists on this sight, you have no room for the insight required to approach the truth.

        • barry says:

          Who are the alarmists? And do the rest know nothing, or are they full of themselves?

  105. paul w shafer phd says:

    My.whole point is this blog on irrational diatribe is as relevant as the fukushima radionuclides in Sierra snow.

  106. paul w shafer phd says:

    I hate to tell you this but ther e is Sr90, Cs137, I129 and even Pu from fukushima in Sierra snow.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Paul…”I hate to tell you this but ther e is Sr90, Cs137, I129 and even Pu from fukushima in Sierra snow”.

      There were POWs at Nagasaki within range of the bomb (5 miles or so) and suffered no ill effects. Those who were outside and exposed to direct radiation at the time of explosion died instantly. A person standing behind a concrete wall who was not exposed to the direct radiation lived. Most people were killed by exposure to the initial EM from the blast and those exposed to that radiation did not fare well.

      The fallout hit many people, who walked away from it and lived a normal life. Nuclear radiation is something to be taken seriously but I am not going to lose sleep over trace amounts in snow that melts to become drinking water.

      • paul w shafer phd says:

        The problem is GE lied with their Maximum Credible Accident in the FSAR when they sold their BWR to utilities and AEC covered it up licensing them.

      • paul w shafer phd says:

        The amount of Pu and fission products released in Nagasaki air blast was 400-1500 times less than Fukushima

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          paul…”The amount of Pu and fission products released in Nagasaki air blast was 400-1500 times less than Fukushima”

          Like I said, it was not the fallout killed so many people it was exposure to the intense EM radiation from the initial blast.

          • paul w shafer phd says:

            The long term dose from internally deposited Pu and select fission products is devastating. See Chernobyl mutations.

  107. Kim D M Simmons says:

    I just discovered your site, I found it fascinating and well over my head scientifically, just wrong area of study for my brain to comprehend with the learned knowledge I’ve poured into in the last 65 years. That said, I am a bottom line kind of person, and you have given us a great direction and a lot of science that I can follow to a point.
    Is the climate changing, my lowly opinion is yes, I believe it is. Is it caused by man? I never have thought so based on events throughout history, however has industrial man contributed to climate change, I think in a small way but more importantly in my view is what all the science has done is to open our eyes to how we can stop the air and water pollution, and I believe we’ve made progress in doing just that. But in both of those cases, we have a long way to go, and I believe with proper understanding and use of real science, we will continue to improve our environment. That in turn will solve the man made contribution to any climate change, or am I way off base here?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Kim…”…more importantly in my view is what all the science has done is to open our eyes to how we can stop the air and water pollution, and I believe weve made progress in doing just that. But in both of those cases, we have a long way to go, and I believe with proper understanding and use of real science, we will continue to improve our environment”.

      No one could argue with your point but right now we have pseudo-scientists lying to us for whatever reason about global warming/climate change. Many justify it based on the notion that the ends justifies the means. We skeptics think science is science and there’s no excuse for using it or abusing it for a cause.

      When we find a solution to replace fossil fuels, whenever that comes, none of us will object. Right now, many skeptics object to climate alarmists using scare tactics to further their cause of doing right now what does not need to be done based on objective science.

      • David Appell says:

        There won’t be a “solution” until fossil fuels are priced correctly, viz. without socializing all the damage they do.

        That can begin to be ameliorated with a carbon tax. B.C.’s is a good start, and it’s working.

        • Lewis says:

          David,

          Those who look to pricing the hidden social costs of various products are only looking for control.

          Why? Because all products have hidden social costs. Those who advocate for carbon taxes are only seeking to use those, supposedly, hidden costs to further their own agenda.

          Take any product. Hay for instance. The hidden costs are those not directly accounted for, but which always exist. It is impossible to account for those, so only the direct, attributable costs are counted.

          examples: Loss of arable land (erosion), roads which displace critters and habitat, and the list goes on.

          Most of us here understand your religion and tolerate your proselytizing with a sense of quaint understanding.

          • paul w shafer phd says:

            How about the hidden costs of nuclear plant explosions with fuel melt? $2 trillion per event. Buys a hell of alot wind, solar,gas and efficiency!

        • David Appell says:

          The negative externalities of fossil fuels are enormous.

          Generating electrical power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus:

          “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 164975 (2011).
          http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

          Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.

          Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).

          Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.

          The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:

          Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
          National Research Council, 2010
          http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

          (Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.) In today’s dollar, that’s about $667 per American per year.

          • SocietalNorm says:


            “Generating electrical power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus”

            That’s just silly.
            If that were true, then the wealth of the world would be far less than back when whale oil was used and still further less than when burning wood (or peat) was the only source of fuel.

          • David Appell says:

            What do you find to be errors in the paper?

            The paper is about today’s economy and society, not that of 200 years ago.

            If one adds up the wealth produced by coal, and subtracts all the health problems it has created, the lives it has ended early, and subtracts the environmental damage it has caused, and will cause over the next 100,000+ years, and those lives it will end early, the cities it will inundate, the agriculture it will ruin, the species it will drive to extinction…Is is really so obvious coal is a net winner?

            I’d like to see you prove that.

            The CO2 from burning one gallon of gasoline will ultimately trap more energy (about 10^11 kcal) that was generated from the Hiroshima bomb.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”That can begin to be ameliorated with a carbon tax. B.C.s is a good start, and its working”.

          You don’t live in here and you have no idea. The carbon tax in BC is like Robin Hood stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

          Our government doesn’t care about people, we have the highest rate of child poverty in Canada. I have told you that before and you don’t seem to care either. I have found that Greens tend to value inanimate objects over humans.

  108. ren says:

    Is San Francisco is ready for the rain?

  109. barry says:

    In 2005, three environmental groups filed a motion to peel off red tape and have the Oroville Dam Spillway reinforced.

    Filed Motion

    Yes, in 2005 ‘alarmists’ (Sierra Club) warned about potential problems with the spillway that we have just seen happen.

  110. ren says:

    “The fierce “atmospheric rivers” that wreaked havoc have dissipated, replaced by a garden-variety low-pressure system from the Gulf of Alaska, according to Steve Anderson, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Monterey.

    “We are done with that for awhile,” Anderson said of the powerful storms. “Now we’re in a classic winter weather pattern.”

    Skies will turn dry by Tuesday, then persist through the end of the week. Early mornings will be chilly, in the 35- to 40-degree range, but then warm to the low 60s by mid-afternoon.

    As the week progresses, temperatures will climb to the mid-60s, according to the weather service.

    Major local reservoirs, such as Lexington, Los Vaqueros, Anderson, Coyote and Uvas, all have reached 100 percent capacity. Stevens Creek Reservoir is at 85 percent capacity.

    The amount of snow that has fallen this winter in the Sierra Nevada is among the highest totals in memory — in many areas topping 500 inches.”
    http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/25/forecast-rain-showers-then-warming-in-bay-area/

    • Greg says:

      You serious Clark? In Northeast Ohio, we just broke record highs 4 times last week… Trees and flowers are blooming… in February! And forecasting 20+F above the average highs this week.

  111. ren says:

    For five days the jet stream returns over California. At the same time winter comes back to Europe.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_nh_f120.png

  112. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Interesting how free of ‘my peer-reviewed research shows….’, which does suggest they are not a research scientist.

    Interesting how free of ‘the IPCC GCMs have successfully predicted the evolution of global temperature…’, isn’t it?

    One would be interested to read this contributor’s CV…..

  113. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    One of the interesting things about David Appell’s comments on this thread is his use of the oft repeated leftist line that Hillary “won” the election. This simply bizarre; the electoral rules for the presidency were one of the political compromises that allowed the United States. Absent that (and many other compromises) the untied States would never have existed, and the individual states would have remained soverign political entities. For those who think the Constitutional rules for elections (president, senators, or anything else) are not “fair” are free to try to change the Constitution by any of the means the Constititon itself allows. The chance of that happening is small of course, but still possible. Trying to make those kinds of constitutional changes is at least rational…. not like the lunacy of Californians planning to leave the Union on the strength of a State referendum. Abe Lincoln already provided an answer to States planning to leave the union… absent a Constitutional amendment which allows leaving.

    • Bart says:

      Nothing more can be said than that she might have won the election if it were based on a nationwide popular vote. Changing the rules would have changed the dynamics. E.g., people who didn’t bother to vote in states where the outcome was already preordained would have shown up to vote.

      She might have won in that case. But, she might not have.

      The reason the Electoral College was set up in the first place still rings true today. The less concentrated population centers will not allow themselves to be ruled by a remote elite in more densely populated regions.

      If their votes carry no weight, then they derive no advantage from the Union. California may be talking secession now – actually, San Francisco and Los Angeles may be – but that is nothing compared to the tidal wave of secessionist fervor that would sweep flyover country if their voices were quashed.

      Personally, I am sick and tired of the histrionics. What a bunch of crybabies.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

        Bart,
        The left does not care about laws, history, or the constitution, only Orwellian ‘progress’ at any cost. Crybabies is far too kind; it is more like a very badly behaved five year old who throws a tantrum whenever an adult says ‘no’. They need to grow up.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Steve Fitzpatrick…”The left does not care about laws, history, or the constitution, only Orwellian progress at any cost”.

          You are generalizing, Steve. That’s not what the left is about at all. The real left began as unionism in democratic countries. The laws we did not care about were those implemented to suppress the working class by using them as peons to make profits for unscrupulous capitalists.

          We defied those laws and told them where to stick it. It’s called civil disobedience and it was advocated by Ben Franklin. How do you thing the US became a country…through civil disobedience?

          Those idiots running around burning cars and acting like jackasses do not represent the true left. They are wannabees. Most of them would not know a socialist from a capitalist.

          Talking about the Constitution, you do realize George Washington had slaves, don’t you?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Those idiots running around burning cars and acting like jackasses do not represent the true left.”

            I agree — we need to stop those rioting over sports championships as soon as possible.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I agree we need to stop those rioting over sports championships as soon as possible”.

            Is that a shot at my home town (Vancouver)? If so, I agree.

            No need for hooliganism, especially the likes of Greenpeace and those, post-Trump victory, burning cars in a fit of hysteria over their version of democracy.

            In the news today, a Democrat who worked for Clinton, was fired for ridiculing the widow of a Navy Seal honoured by Trump. I don’t know how low these snakes can go. I used to favour the Democrats over the Republicans, feeling disappointed when Gore lost to Bush. That was before I knew what Gore stood for, and his fellow Democrats.

            I am a socialist and I have been putting up with one uber-right-wing government after the other in my province of BC. They are even right of Trump in ways although in their political-correctness they won’t express what they really feel toward others. They pay lip service to families and children while having the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

            Trump mouths off a lot but I don’t think his bite is nearly as bad as his bark. Unfortunately, it’s the opposite with our government. Some of the meanest people on the planet.

            If you knew them as I know them, you’d think twice about endorsing their carbon tax. When this government installs a carbon tax, it’s not because they are environmentalists, it’s to find a way to siphon money to their private enterprise supporters.

      • barry says:

        The left does not care about laws, history…

        I’m a lefty (centre left).

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/fan-mail/#comment-238473

        Maybe ease up on the generalizations?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Barry…”Im a lefty (centre left)”.

          I’m even further left, I am the only person I know willing to call himself a socialist.

          Of course, socialism has become a feared word in places since the Bolsheviks used it to make it appear that their ultra-fascist state had something to do with workers. The socialism to which I refer is a workers movement that began in democratic countries.

          There are different kinds of lefties as well. There are those, like myself, who have fought in the trenches in unions. Until you have a stood on a picket line and refused to move when ordered to by police, you don’t know what early unionists went through to get us institutions like pensions, better wages and conditions, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and here in Canada, Universal Medicare.

          There are lefties who are idealists and tend to push political correctness, like the current climate alarmists who don’t really give a hoot about the science. All they want is a vehicle to tax people with the idealistic aim of helping the poor.

          You help the poor by helping the poor, not by scaring people half to death about catastrophic climate change.

          Anyone who thinks socialists are anti-capitalism or anti-profit are wrong. There are many socialist millionaires and even billionaires. The difference is that real socialist just want fair business practices, especially in the way those practices affect the working class and the poor.

      • David Appell says:

        Bart says:
        “California may be talking secession now actually, San Francisco and Los Angeles may be but that is nothing compared to the tidal wave of secessionist fervor that would sweep flyover country if their voices were quashed.”

        Nebraska can have its corn fields. California keeps all its technology.

        It’s the red states that take more from the federal government than they pay.

    • David Appell says:

      “The reason the Electoral College was set up in the first place still rings true today….”

      The Electoral College was set up to protect slave-holding states, who feared slaves voting for the winner of a popular election.

      James Madison:

      “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

      The Electoral College gives votes to acres, not to people, and sparsely populated rural states have up to three time the voting power of populated states (i.e. Wyoming vs California). It has long been outdated and now twice in 20 years has led to a president whom the majority did not vote for. The EC needs to go.

      • Ball4 says:

        Acres do not vote David. The EC exists because the country is (now) the 50 United States, the country is not simply the United Democracy.

      • billybob says:

        Vermont and Alaska both have 3 electoral votes, acreage comment does not make sense. Also, remove California vote and Trump wins popular vote. Also, change rules and Trump probably campaigns in California.

      • Bart says:

        The EC isn’t going anywhere. There is zero chance that the states between California and New York are going to approve an Amendment that would effectively make them vassals of the coastal cities.

      • David Appell says:

        billybob says:
        “Also, remove California vote and Trump wins popular vote.”

        Right, remove the most populous state in the country…. This makes no sense at all.

      • David Appell says:

        Bart says:
        “The EC isnt going anywhere.”

        I didn’t say it was — the rural and ex-slave-holding states are too greedy, to the detriment of democracy — but there is a way to effectively nullify it:

        “Yes, We Could Effectively Abolish the Electoral College Soon. But We Probably Wont,” Slate 11/10/16
        http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/the_electoral_college_could_be_abolished_without_an_amendment.html

        • Ron Hayes says:

          For those who think we should go to a nationwide popular vote versus the Electoral College to select the president should be reminded that The United States is a federal republic and not a democracy, which as widely misunderstood. “Federal” meaning a federation of States and “Republic” meaning governed by elected representatives rather than by a monarch or dictator.

          Constitutionally we are a collection of individual sovereign States participating in a federation. This understanding/concept has been eroded due to the ever increasing power and dominance of the National/Federal government in our lifetimes. We do, in most cases, utilize democratic principles applied in various ways to select the individuals that will represent us in the numerous government positions from the local level all the way to the national level. However, good citizens should research the concept of, tyranny of the majority to understand why the founders were very wary of setting up pure democracies at any governmental level.

          The founders were very concerned about the National/Federal government gaining too much power where tyranny would be the natural result. This is why the Constitution lays out the separation of powers with a system of checks and balances between three branches. This is also why the 10th amendment (one of the Bill of Rights amendments added shortly after ratification of the Constitution) was added which says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It is clear the founders intended for the States to maintain a high level of sovereignty in the federation as a check to the power of the National/Federal government.

          The Electoral College was setup as a mechanism for the States to elect the president. It was setup in recognition that the States have sovereignty. It is up to each State to individually decide how they will vote their electors in a presidential election. Here in Alabama we have a statewide popular election and the winner gets all nine of our elector votes towards the selection of the president.

          The founders were also concerned about any one State or group of States gaining too much power. Each States representation in the Electoral College (number of electoral votes) is the same as their representation in the Federal Legislature which is 2 Senators plus the number of Representatives they have in the House (which is based on population). This compromise respects the sovereignty of each State (each State has 2 Senators in the Senate regardless of population) and recognizes that more populous States should have more representation than less populous States which respects the sovereignty of the individual citizen.

          A tremendous amount of thought and debate among hundreds of very intelligent founding fathers went into the writing, ratification and amending of the Constitution of the United States. It has served us very well when followed. The Constitution purposefully created a system/mindset/paradigm/culture that we are a collection of States, hence the name The United States and NOT a single supreme National State. Going to a nationwide popular vote would be yet another move toward The United States of America becoming The National State of America which is NOT what the founding fathers set us up to be.

          I would rather live in The United States versus the The National State. That way there will be 50 different States, each with a different and unique system of government. There will be 50 different living experiments in what is the best system for the balances between liberty versus protection/laws, taxation versus government services, local authority versus centralized authority, etc… This way anyone can move to a different State if they dont like how the State they are in is being run. In this manner the States that have better systems will be more successful and naturally attract people to them. The effect will be a clear expectation for States to improve their government systems because there will be an element of competition. But more importantly, people will have the opportunity/freedom to choose to live in a State that better matches their individual values.

          The founding fathers understood the propensity for governments to grow in size and power at the expense of individual freedoms. For this reason the U.S. Constitution (when followed) limits the power of the National/Federal government. If our State government becomes too oppressive we have the opportunity to move to a different State. As the U.S. Constitution continues to be obfuscated and ignored and the size and power of the National/Federal government continues to grow our individual freedoms are eroded.

          Going to a nationwide popular vote and away from the Electoral College would accelerate the movement away from federalism and the intended sovereignty of the States. At its core the Electoral College versus nationwide popular vote debate is the bigger question that is, do we want to continue to be a federal republic or not?

          • David Appell says:

            Bottom line: states have very disproportionate voting powers, which is inherently unfair. A vote in Wyoming counts three times more than one in California.

          • bilybob says:

            Great synopsis. There are some who have the opinion that this is not fair. I would have to disagree, I think the EC is the probably the fairest system that balances States needs and the Peoples needs. It reminds me of the scene from Mad, Mad, Mad World where they try to come up with a fair allocation of the money buried under the big “W”. At least the Founders saw past that and worked out a great compromise.

            The interesting thing from this past election though is California who has 55 electoral votes represents 10.2% of the EC and the total vote from California versus the nation was 10.3% so their voice is still pretty loud. I think it is much more important and fairer to hear the voices from places like the District of Columbia, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska. After all most Federal programs are directed towards the States, each should have a voice, even if it means dimming California’s by 0.1%.

          • Bart says:

            It’s fair because the cities are places where people lose their individuality, and form an unthinking herd. Each person is only a fraction of a fully conscious personality.

            In all seriousness, it’s fair because without it, the Union will dissolve.

          • argus says:

            Trump won at least 60% of the States. Hillary won 2% more of the popular vote. Your brainwashed city has no greater claim to determining a National election for President than my brainwashed State. I voted for the space cadet Gary Johnson for the record.

        • Bart says:

          Dream on.

          • Ron Hayes says:

            @ David Appell – So are you saying you want the Federal Republic to go away, i.e. you don’t want the States to have sovereignty? Going to a national popular vote for president would be a big step in that direction.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Steve Fitzpatrick…”One of the interesting things about David Appells comments on this thread is his use of the oft repeated leftist line that Hillary won the election”.

      That’s just DA’s logic. In his world of logic an atmospheric gas representing 4/100ths of 1% of the atmosphere controls all the heat in the atmosphere.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        +1

        • Norman says:

          Massimo PORZIO

          I saw you gave Gordon a +1. I hope you reconsider. I might disagree with David Appell on the degree of Climate Sensitivity but not with his understanding of GHE.

          First if you look at Hotel’s emissivity graphs for H2O and CO2 you can get a good understanding of GHE.

          http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

          Hotel’s graphs are based upon empirical measurements.

          You can use these to find the emissivity of Carbon Dioxide.
          Use the partial pressure of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere at 0.0004

          http://www.aqion.de/site/99

          To get the emissivity you multiply (0.0004) by the beam length in meters. If you use 2000 meters you get and emissivity of around 0.18 (from charts).

          The lapse rate is around 6 C/km so in 2000 m the total drop in temp would be 12 C. If your surface averages 15 C the average temp drop would be about 6 C (half-way point of 1000 m). 15-6 gives you 9 C radiating temperature (more below less above but an average).

          Using the Stephan-Boltzmann Law

          You get P=(1m^2)(0.18 emissivity)(5.67×10^-8)(282^4K)

          This gives you around 64.5 W/m^2 radiated energy from Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere (probably more as my calculation is oversimplified to demonstrate the logic behind the GHE).

          Of the 340 total W/m^2 of downwelling IR, the percent from CO2 would equal about 19% of the total flux.

          You can see how this amount of Carbon Dioxide can contribute to the GHE.

          I hope you reconsider your Plus 1 for Gordon. I do not think his physics is very sound and he should do more study.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,
            I’m not sure you get my point (and probably the Gordon one).
            The Sun heat the Earth half globe a day, so the temperature of the ground isn’t only fixed by mere emissivity but also by the thermal or heat capacity of the Earth, the high the capacity the longer time is required to allow the radiation exit from the surface. When the sunlight “refills” the surface at the morning there is still energy from the days before that make the temperature of the globe.
            Most of that energy is because of the energy stored in high density matter that compose the Earth system, not from those little molecules of gas.
            Do you get it?

            I’m not arguing that CO2 molecules are not influent, but just that they are irrelevant to the energy store on our planet.
            Try this simple experiment, keep two identical box of good thermal conducting material and fill one of water and leave the other “empty of air”, than put both into an oven at say 60*C for one hour. When you take them out of the oven measure the temperature after one hour and see what it happens.
            Do you realize how much heat must be exchanged at the surface for a (say) 100m tall column of seawater to drop one single Celsius along it?

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Norman says:

            Massimo PORZIO

            Hi Massimo,

            I may not get you point but I think I do. You would be correct that heat capacity would slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface but it would only slow it, the surface would reach a new lower equilibrium temperature without Carbon Dioxide.

            The point I was bringing up is that there is plenty of CO2 to contribute about 10 to 20 % to the current GHE of 33 C. A lot of people concentrate on the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and think it is too low to have any effect but the science would certainly show other. You have to include a fairly large beam length since the Troposphere is thousands of meters thick. Once you include a long beam path the carbon dioxide present will radiate around 60 W/m^2 in all directions.

            Follow my logic if you wish. I will try and explain.

            The Earth’s surface is 510 trillion m^2. Water makes up 71% of this so the Earth has a water surface of 362 trillion m^2.

            With the example you gave go 100 meters deep and that gives you a water volume 3.62 x 10^16 m^3. 1 m^3 water has a mass of 1,000,000 grams (1000 kg/m^3). Heat capacity of water is 4.18 joules/gram-K

            Joules/K in this volume of water = (3.62×10^16 m^3)(10^6 g/m^3)(4.18 joules/g-K) = 1.513×10^23 joules/K

            Lots of energy but now consider if you removed the carbon dioxide from the air (and changed nothing else for the sake of simplicity of logic not precision of reality…basically reducing complexity to demonstrate a point)…with no CO2 you now will lose 60 W/m^2 that would have returned to the surface.

            Take the same area of water at 362×10^12 m^2 and multiply this by 60 W/m^2 and you get an increase loss of energy 2.17×10^16 W/m^2 which is equivalent to 2.17×10^16 joules/second more energy loss from the water surface.

            From the previous calculation you need to remove 1.513×10^23 joules to lower the water temperature 1C.

            Time in seconds = (1.513×10^23 joules)/(2.17×10^16 joules/second)
            Time = 6,972,350 seconds

            Minutes = 116,205 minutes
            Hours = 1,936 hours
            days = 80.7 days

            Does not take that much time to drop 1 C in the scheme of things.

            If you remove 60 W/m^2 returning to the surface you would lower the equilibrium temperature from 390 W/m^2 to 330 W/m^2 (assuming nothing else changes, probably other effects would greatly change things, as the surface cooled you would have less evaporative cooling so the surface would probably not cool as much as a pure radiative effect).

            At 330 W/m^2 as a new equilibrium radiation the surface would cool about 12 C. To drop 12 C it would take a total of 80.7 days to drop 1 C times 12 or 968 days or 2.65 years.

            I think this might demonstrate to you that Carbon Dioxide does have a large roll in surface temperature so it is not the negligible effect Gordon Robertson believes it to be.

            Sorry for the very long post. Hope I presented it clear enough for you to follow. Again the calculations are not reflecting the real world situation but just to show that even with the large thermal storage of water the entire 100 meters of water would cool in just a few years without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,

            I think there is a problem in your nice dissertation above (which I compliment with you, because it demonstrate that you are really interested to honestly solve this issue).

            IMHO those 60W of backradiation do not changes any equilibrium because they are due to the emittance of the IR active gases in the atmosphere (yourself linked the emittance table above) the total emittance depends on temperature, not vice-versa.
            Even in my opinion that back-radiated energy is just part of the back-returned energy usually returned to the ground by the gravitational force, with the little difference that the radiated energy is discretized (that is limited) by the photons capability of hold energy.

            In this case my point is: if the atmosphere could be removed immediately, the surface temperature should jump up steeply because it’s removed the continuous work done by the surface to keep the atmosphere up there, and the whole energy accumulated by the Earth (sea and land) over time became free to be irradiated to the outer space.

            Anyways, to shut down definitively the AGW debate, in my opinion we should collect the moon temperature over time and recording it for 30/40 years compare its temperature anomaly with the one of the Earth. In case the GHG effect was really consistent it should show up by the comparison.

            As always said, I could be wrong, I’m just an EE.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Norman says:

            Massimo PORZIO

            Hi again.

            They do monitor the Moon’s surface temperature.

            Here is one example (there are others).
            https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/empirical-results-from-diviner-confirm-s-b-law-was-misapplied-to-moon/

            This one shows the day temperature much above the Earth’s daytime surface temperature but it falls much below at night and the mean is much below Earth’s surface mean.

            The gravitational hypothesis (convection) is an overall cooling process to the surface not a heating one. It exists but is not as strong as radiative heating. Evaporation removes a lot more energy.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

            This graph shows the energy needed to sustain the atmosphere circulation. It does not require any additional energy to hold up the atmosphere than to maintain what is lost by radiation emission out of the Earth system.

            The GHG’s are warmed by absorbing the surface emitted IR, the incoming solar IR and the energy moved into it from thermals and latent heat when the water vapor condenses. All these inputs keep the GHG temperature at a point where it will average a downwelling flux of 340 W/m^2. More at some places, less in others. The GHE does radiate at night as well as day since the atmosphere still has temperature at night but it does go down as the air cools.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58b6b7ad5377d.png

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,
            “The gravitational hypothesis (convection) is an overall cooling process to the surface not a heating one.”

            IMHO is not that the reason that the sky is up there, is the temperature of the surface that fires the molecules up there.
            Convection is one of the low speed air processes that effectively should cool the atmosphere, but the atmosphere itself can’t stand up there if its molecules haven’t sufficient KE to rise against the gravity and convection has nothing to do with that. It’s an high speed process of KE exchange between molecules which keeps them separated and at the same time, it should be the most important process (not the only one of course) that establish the height of the atmosphere as a function of the surface temperature because the energy comes from below and returns there.

            About the Moon, I already seen those plots but my point is that they are not so useful. If we want give a good evaluation of how much the Sun activity really drives (or not, or how much) our climate, the best way in my point of view is make a differential analysis of the Earth and the Moon temperature anomalies along a significative lapse of time. Both receive the very same Sun radiation so the different temperature departures from a reference should tell us something useful to evaluate the different processes which should drive the climate here.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • Norman says:

            Massimo PORZIO

            Air molecules cannot fly up very high near Earth surface.

            The mean-free path is very small. This is the reason heat flows very slowly through air and why air makes a very good insulator is because the kinetic energy of heated air molecules at one location takes a long time to move another location.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_free_path

            Air molecules interacting with the surface will only move a tiny fraction before exchanging energy and direction with other molecules and the since the motion is random there is not rapid exchange of energy upward.

            You may want to reconsider your thought process on this issue.

          • AmenMassimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,
            yes of course, you wrote something that I know for sure, no doubt about that.
            Someone told me on this very site that the average maximum path should be about 70nm,
            but instead of repeat what I wrote that time I would invite you to have a though to the so called Newtons Cradles.

            http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/newtons-cradle.htm

            Just imagine it in a vacuum chamber and start it. It virtually never stops and demonstrate how the balls exchange their KE each other.
            In the reality the balls even in vacuum stop moving because little by little they transform a part of KE in heat because of the bumping.
            The air molecules does the same the molecules on the very first layer receive the energy from the surface (heat) and after having converted it to KE exchange it the molecules the layer above which do the same for le layer above them and so on. But for any layer they convert part of their KE in PE until the TOA where the KE fall to zero because its all converted to PE.
            Of course the exchange is bi-directional and the very same KE returns to the surface passing though all the molecular KE exchange between layers, finally returning the KE to the surface as heat.
            The one who I wrote last time also computed the maximum height the last layer molecule should reach for 300K and it was about 13km (it could be accidental, but that vale is very close to that level of the atmosphere we use to set the end of troposphere).
            By the way (for simplicity), I considered only the vertical component of KE, but that its component needed to build the lapse rate.
            Im still convinced that gravity force isnt the cause of the lapse rate by itself, but its the contributing cause of the lapse rate when a kinetic energy flow passes along its vector direction.
            The same, Im still convinced that this continuous energy exchange at the surface should work in parallel to the GHG effect mitigating this last in fixing the ground temperature.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • AmenMassimo PORZIO says:

            Ops!
            Where are gone all the apostrophes of my previous message?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            And that “Amen” before my name???

            OMG my computer is taking control!

          • Norman says:

            Massimo PORZIO

            Here are a couple of graphs to demonstrate why you should reconsider your gravitational hypothesis (which I do not accept as valid).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline#/media/File:THERMOCLINE.png

            Gravity does not increase the kinetic energy of water molecules to form a larger temperature gradient.

            https://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/

            This is a temperature inversion in the dark Arctic in the winter (no sun). The kinetic energy of air molecules does not make its way down to the surface.

            Please rethink your understanding. Thanks! I like your posts. Let evidence determine your understanding.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,
            Im not sure what you mean with Gravity does not increase the kinetic energy of water molecules to form a larger temperature gradient.
            Water is not a gas, AFIK for liquids the temperature isnt only its KE, or do I miss something?.

            About the winter inversion at the arctic, IMHO it should demonstrates what I always thought, that is: the ground higher density should drive temperature at the surface and the increment in KE due to gravity could be short-circuited (or better overcompensated) by the radiative flux of the ground itself that is particularly cold, and the atmosphere could receive heat from lower latitudes from its upper strata.
            I dont find anything that contradicts my energy flow along the gravity vector hypothesis.
            I never thought that the energy flow along the gravity vector effect should be the only mechanism which drive the atmospheric temperature along its height, it should be just one factor of the complex and chaotic atmospheric system.

            Your wrote: The kinetic energy of air molecules does not make its way down to the surface.
            I think this is disputable, IMHO the molecule fall down anyways of course, but loosing more KE by radiation than gaining KE during their falling down. Anyways the KE return to the ground one way or another, but the ground fix the temperature because of its heat capacity.

            I very appreciate your passion to this argument, it demonstrate that you have the right characteristics to be a good researcher and scientist.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Norman says:

            Massimo PORZIO

            https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/liquids-and-solids-11/kinetic-molecular-theory-of-matter-83/the-kinetic-molecular-theory-of-matter-371-1529/

            The average kinetic energy of the particles making up a solid, liquid or gas determines its temperature except for phase changes. The majority of the ocean is not involved in phase change so the temperature of the water is based upon the average kinetic energy of the water molecules. The molecules of water in deep ocean are moving slower than those at the surface. The kinetic energy of the surface molecules is not moving down (like in your 5 steel ball example).

            I did entertain this idea for a little time (investigated it) but then rejected it as unscientific and not based upon reality. The one who convinced me was the poster Curt a while back and his arguments with a high speed centrifuge. The air molecules in such a device are subject to g-forces far exceeding Earth gravity. He calculated that if the gravity hypothesis had a any merit the walls of the centrifuge would melt from the increase of kinetic energy the air molecules would gain falling to the walls of the container. Since this does not happen I started to reflect on the flaw in this concept and figured out mean-free path prevented the downward kinetic energy exchange. I did long posts on it a few years back.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Norman,
            thank you again for supplying the link, I always heard about vibrational energy, and I never figured out that its still KE indeed.
            But IMHO this should mean nothing in the context because its a completely different KE. Gravity can just convert into PE only the speed part of the molecular KE. IMHO for gasses the speed is predominant, while for liquids/solids the main factor is the mass because the molecules are tight together by their attraction force (for liquids they just can slide one on the other). So in the thermocline the gravitational effect on the thermal profile could be well overcompensated by the conduction that could hide it.

            About Curts high speed centrifuge, I really wonder that it could lead to any increase on temperature of the centrifuge walls. Maybe Ive been not clear, but I never wrote that gravity increase the KE. Gravity is a force, so it cant increase any energy. Its true that during the centrifuge startup, the exterior wall is warmed a little because of the temporary increasing pressure on the wall. But after every impact of any single gas molecule on the wall, the molecule exchanges its increasing KE with the KE due to the wall temperature that having a very higher density than the gas and dissipating to the environment it should lead to very little temperature increase (if any measurable).
            IMHO in a centrifuge (whatever it is the super-acceleration it impose on the gas), after the centrifuges startup, I just expect a thermal profile with the external walls at the environment temperature and the gas temperature radially inward reducing. But to get that profile the acceleration must be sufficient to avoid the gas molecules to reach the centre of the centrifuge.

            Anyways, I still cant imagine what could avoid the atmospheric molecules to escape into the outer space, if the gravity force dont converts their KE to PE until zero.
            I know that most molecules never reach zero KE because of their inclined trajectory, but those molecules should never reach the TOA, they should reach the height imposed by their vertical speed component (that is their vertical KE component).

            As always, I could be wrong Im just an EE.

            Thank you again for your interest on the issue and for your patience.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            uhmmm… again missing apostrophes… ???

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Thats just DAs logic. In his world of logic an atmospheric gas representing 4/100ths of 1% of the atmosphere controls all the heat in the atmosphere.”

        Gordon, time and time and time again, you prove that you don’t understand anything.

  114. ren says:

    “The drought is not over,” David Sweet, a National Weather Service meteorologist based in Oxnard. “And we don’t know if another storm like that will hit or not. We certainly don’t see anything like it over the next seven days.”

    The good news: The area around Cachuma Lake, which is midway between the beaches and bustle of Santa Barbara and the Danish community of Solvang, is no longer considered to be in extreme drought. “On Feb. 23, its status was lowered to severe drought,” Sweet said.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cachuma-rain-20170225-story.html
    https://rain.cosbpw.net/sensor.php?site_id=105&site=70729dd9-97d4-430a-9271-7b6c195b49be&device_id=8&device=c7bde9da-2c90-47fd-9fe0-69aa0cf94d82

  115. Obama says:

    As a layman (I’m not a scientist) I have never got a good answer to this question:

    CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. I assume most of this is natural. I tried to google how much of the 0.04% is man-caused and it looks like something less than 10% – around 5% to 7%. I’m not sure.

    My simple math is 7% of 0.04% is man-caused. This is about 0.003% of the atmosphere. How is 0.003% of the atmosphere responsible for ALL of climate change.

    The claim of the warmists is that ALL of climate change is due to 0.003% of the atmosphere?

    Where am I wrong and what do I not understand? 0.003% seems insignificant to me and not powerful enough to result in catastrophic rapid rates of change.

    CO2 is that poisonous and toxic and the climate is that sensitive to CO2? Really?

    • ren says:

      Is not it a more important trend changes in the magnetic field of the sun?
      http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
      http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif

      • Obama says:

        Good point. The warmists seem very worried about 0.003% of the atmosphere causing catastrophic rates of climate change. Seems then that the Earth’s climate system is super fragile/sensitive to teeny-tiny changes in the atmosphere. How many of these teeny-tiny variables are there? Not sure why CO2 is singled out as the only cause of meteorological change?

        • Obama says:

          I should have said, “Not sure why man-caused CO2 of 0.003% of the atmosphere is singled out as the ONLY cause of catastrophic rate of meteorological changes.”

          The issue seems to be the catastrophic rate of change is causing all the worry and it is due to only 1 variable – man-caused CO2.

          Eventually, would like to know what will be the near term climate disaster (next 50 years) facing North America? Seems really vague and ambiguous.

      • David Appell says:

        Obama says:
        “CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. I assume most of this is natural. I tried to google how much of the 0.04% is man-caused and it looks like something less than 10% around 5% to 7%. Im not sure.”

        How about learning enough to be sure?

        pct man-caused = (405-280)/280 = 45%

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”I tried to google how much of the 0.04% is man-caused…”

          You might have tried the IPCC documentation. I can find the quote (I think it was from TAR) again if you like but they claimed in words that ACO2 was a small fraction of natural CO2. When you work out the accompanying graphic it comes to a bit under 4% based on 390 ppmv.

          The US Department of Energy used to publish a table based on the graphic and that’s what they claimed. It has disappeared under the Obama admin cleansing of such data.

          The 45% figure is hypothetical based on CO2 bubbles trapped in ice core proxies from Antarctica. No one has ever established that the proxies are accurate. In fact, Jaworowski claimed the IPCC cherry picked concentrations in the ice that varied from under what they claimed to 2000 ppmv.

          He claimed that carbon gas trapped in ice turns to a solid (clathrate) as the ice is buried and the pressure rises. When that ice is drilled, water forms from the increase in temperatures due to the drilling and dilutes the gas. He claimed the concentrations claimed by the IPCC could be 30% – 50% out.

          The IPCC is known for making the data fit the theory.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The 45% figure is hypothetical based on CO2 bubbles trapped in ice core proxies from Antarctica”

            It’s not “hypothetical,” it comes from MEASURING the CO2 content of air molecules from ice cores.

            From a measurement.

            Are you saying those measurements are wrong?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The 45% figure is hypothetical based on CO2 bubbles trapped in ice core proxies from Antarctica. No one has ever established that the proxies are accurate”

            You need to deny AGW makes you look more ridiculous every day.

            The CO2 measurements are readily available, with uncertainties, published now by many different groups from many different ice cores drilled all around the world.

            Having to deny ALL the data doesn’t do anything for your claims.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “He claimed that carbon gas trapped in ice turns to a solid (clathrate) as the ice is buried and the pressure rises. When that ice is drilled, water forms from the increase in temperatures due to the drilling and dilutes the gas.”

            That ice being drilled is far below zero. The molecules of interest are trapped in clathrates. When the ice is brought to a lab atmospheric pressure, the air bubbles reappear.

            I don’t know who “Jaworski” is, but he doesn’t appear to have ever drilled any ice.

          • barry says:

            I know who Jarowoski is. He is a driller who has never drilled an ice core. ‘Skeptics’ like him because he disagrees with everyone else about ice cores.

            In other news, conservapedia argues that Einstein was wrong.

        • Obama says:

          The 7% I got from the Skeptical Science web-site. Again, I’m not a scientist. Just a layman. Let’s face it the facts are just not real transparent to a layman. A layman Google search will result in lots of contradictory data.

          You must know that.

          I just don’t understand why this science is clear and concise and transparent and accurately quantifiable.

          I am a finance/accounting professional. My profession is much simpler. But also abides in principles that are accountable and transparent.

          Climate science not so much.

          • Obama says:

            I meant to say, “I just don’t understand why this science is NOT clear…” Lots of technical obfuscation. Lots of different perspectives.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Obama…”CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. I assume most of this is natural. I tried to google how much of the 0.04% is man-caused and it looks like something less than 10% around 5% to 7%. Im not sure”.

      ACO2 makes up about 4% of natural CO2 according to the IPCC. They claim in words that ACO2 is a ‘few percent’ of natural CO2 based on 390 ppmv. The accompanying graphic gives the actual numbers and you have to calculate it for yourself.

      The US Department of Energy used to have a table on their site that gave the actual numbers based on the graphic.

      See page 515 in document (17 of 90 in PDF) and previous page for quote below:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf

      “…the anthropogenic fluxes of CO2 between the atmosphere and both the land and ocean are just a few percent…”

      You have to read the graphic carefully to get the correct figures, The IPCC has typically added smoke and mirrors numbers based on speculation.

      • Obama says:

        Thanks. Very helpful links. My 7% estimate came from Skeptical Science.

        For layman discussion purposes I would just simply state that it is under 10% of 0.04%.

        Very teeny-tiny factor in the atmosphere. For us accountants and financial professionals we deal with MATERIALITY. Less than 10% of 0.04% is IMMATERIAL.

        I will let the scientists debate the exact precise number. But clearly it is IMMATERIAL.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Obama…another interesting carbon cycle link from the pre-IPCC days. What stands out is the open-mindedness to the problem rather than the myopic views of the IPCC.

      http://archives.aaas.org/docs/Atmospheric_CO2_Global_Carbon_Cycle.pdf

      I noted a reference in the document to ACO2 making up 2.5% of the flux between the surface and atmosphere.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Obama…yet another well documented link:

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

      The claim the CO2 effect is a bit over 3%.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes, because credible “well documented” links often come from geocraft.com, right?

        That page sings out the world “amateurish.”

        Q1: How much CO2 does the planet emit annually?
        Q2: How much CO2 does the planet absorb annually?

        Q3: What is the difference of these two amounts?

        • Obama says:

          Can you provide a link that nearly 1/2 of the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is Anthropogenic? Also, will this link provide transparency as to the % contribution by TYPE of man-caused CO2. It would be interesting to see what are the different types that make up the 1/2 of 0.04%.

          Already, I see that Gordon Robertson’s link contradicts what you claim. Why is the science so muddy and unclear?

  116. Barry you claim:

    “The growth was rapid, but 1999 had a faster growth from minimum to the end of September (I didnt check any years before then).”

    Where is your evidence you used to come to this conclusion. Please provide links to every claim you make.

    Your second claim is that there are plenty of studies that simply don’t back up the theory that GCR are a main controller in climate change. Why are you using consensus to back up your claim. Consensus based on what other people conclude isn’t true science. You need to forget about other people and test the claim your self to see if it really supports what you are trying to prove to be true that is real science! Real graphs have shown that vapor and clouds have increased dramatically over the past few years across the planet. Why is this? Is it because of a warming planet like most scientists claim. Naaa despite the uptick in solar temps caused by a record breaking El Nio and a peak heating of solar cycle 24 which marks the end of this warming period for the next at least 200 years there has been no SIGNIFICANT increase in global temps for the past few years. What about geoengineering? Couldn’t that be why all those clouds have increased by 25% globally in just a few year time span. Naaaaa genetic engineering is simply another billion dollar hoax just like CAGW! That white fluffy stuff that comes out of planes aren’t chemtrails but simply feul exhaust from the plane decreasing in latitude. It’s just like the stuff that comes out of our tale pipes of our vehicles on a cold day. Water vapor. Where did that water vapor come from you ask? Hmmmmm maybe instead of rain causing rivers and oceans to form some gigantic dinosaur farted and so much water came out of its ass that that’s where all the extra water came from! WRONG! Unlike co2 that has been buried in the ground for 1000s of years now at least by the rotting of fossilized rocks and bones water doesn’t come from there. It’s called the water cycle. It’s that same water that has been vaporized to form feul to keep the plane running the only reason it comes out white is because the planes are so high up that at that high altitude water freezes and forms frozen ice crystals. It’s that same water just putting it back into the air for it too once again fall back as precipitation drinking by us pissed out our holes and developed oceans and other body of waters!

    • David Appell says:

      ClimateChange4realz says:
      “What about geoengineering? Couldnt that be why all those clouds have increased by 25% globally in just a few year time span.”

      Data?

    • barry says:

      CC4R,

      Where is your evidence you used to come to this conclusion. Please provide links to every claim you make.

      Visual inspection done here:

      http://tinyurl.com/mach5ge

      Check 1999 and 2016 – if you hover your cursor carefully you can get concentration amounts for any day.

      Data to verify obtained here:

      http://tinyurl.com/p9v5eby

      The growth rate from minimum through September 30 was faster in 1999 than in 2016.

      You have a visual tool and the data to check. Please check my work.

      • barry says:

        CC4R, if you want me to follow links and discuss things with you, please demonstrate the way.

        Can you please verify that sea ice growth after minimum in September 1999 was faster than sea ice growth in September 2016? You have a visual tool and a link to data, which you requested.

        I’m ok with you saying that by providing the links I’ve corroborated my claim. If not, you know what to do next.

    • paul w shafer phd says:

      Stratospheric water vapor is not the isuue, but CO2 half life in stratosphere frim jet plane exhaust is an issue. Also nuclear power adds significant water vapor to troposhere lower levels.

      • Ever heard of the water cycle?

        • The water that is being vaporized is the water that has been cycled and cycled since humans and maybe even any form of life existed. Paul why do you have a phd and I have more common sense then you? My grandfathers name is Paul he’s 76 years old he’s not a scientist nor did he go to class to become one and even he has more common sense then you. That isn’t something to be happy about.

          • paul w shafer phd says:

            Many diffeeeeerent technological inputs aftfect alteration of the water cycle and create peryurbations.

          • “Many diffeeeeerent technological inputs aftfect alteration of the water cycle and create perturbations”

            Paul, it doesn’t matter what we do,the water cycle is the same water that has been cycled. We can do whatever we want with our technology to try to add water to disturb the cycle but but it is the same water that has been cycled even before man existed. The question you have to ask yourself is How do you think the water got here in the first place. Did it fall from the sky or did it somehow end up in the ground and never fell back as rain again? As they say what goes up must come down! But what about what goes down must come up? Well we don’t know exactly how water came apart this earth but we do know is the water that is stored aground eventually trickles back in the ocean to only to get absorbed by evaporation, condense and fall back as rain once again. The claim you made makes absolutely no sense simply because it is a false statement. Feel free to educate yourself as much as possible

            https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclehi.html

  117. Ross Brisbane says:

    As Australia scorches, a new issue to deal with for climate Deniers (deniers of Global Warming/Climate Change).

    Indicators of data in real world regions of geographical typology that confirm global warming and higher energy altered states within the earth’s climate.

    These results play on minds of human responses:

    No, it is just cycle, solar caused or anything but greenhouse gases situation <- DENIAL of science

    Yes Increasing Green gases to atmosphere causing more energy conservation to our climate system – thereby we experience mild warming and it is benign global warming <- DENIAL of the EVER INCREASING EFFECT of greenhouse gases causing more and more energy conservation – more global warming and higher thresholds.

    Roy Spencer = MILD result and harmless hypothesis theory – UNPROVEN and defying trends in the earth ecology record over the last decade and half. Greater time spans should shift your opinion Roy – but you play the mildest gaming really well on sceptic minds already suffering from confirmation bias.

    Call me plain stupid but the evidence I see defies your reasoning and conclusions.

    No – it is just not happening at all. This is CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING DENIAL

    Thus the term: Climate DENIER.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/as-australia-scorches-sea-ice-spread-around-antarctica-hits-a-record-low-20170218-gufxpn.html

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ross brisbane..”Roy Spencer = MILD result and harmless hypothesis theory UNPROVEN and defying trends in the earth ecology record over the last decade and half”.

      Stop your blethering and propaganda. There has been no…none, nada…average global warming for 18 years. That was partly confirmed by the Mother of All Alarmists, the IPCC, in 2013.

      The heat wave in Australia is relevant only to people of this generation. There have been heat waves in Australia for at least a century and likely for eons.

      Australia is at one end of the ENSO system. As a result, the country is prone to floods, droughts and heat waves.

      Try some science and do check the historical record for Australia.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “There has been nonone, nadaaverage global warming for 18 years”

        Gordon, serious question: why do you keep repeating this, when it has been disproved to you time and time again?

        Do you really not understand how repeating it destroys any credibility you thought you had left?

        Seriously.

        • Bart says:

          It hasn’t. There has been no significant change in globally averaged temperatures for almost two decades. There has been a recent El Nino blip, but that is crashing, and we are back to the mean of the past two decades already.

          No matter how much you quibble with that, the fact remains that the change is far less than the GCM ensemble projection. It’s dead, Dave.

          • Ross Brisbane says:

            Bart – I do not any evidence as such at what you are saying. All I see in the ecological record is ON TARGET transitional Climate shift that BACKS UP the claim that increasing greenhouse gases INCREASES energy conservation within the earth’s climate creating a greenhouse effect. This will have long term runaway effects in our ecology on humanities food chain, our way of life and all the creatures that inhabit this earth.

            You obviously have NOT READ the HARD CORE science report.

            It’s about time you took those off blinders and stop denial/luke warmest selective rubbish.

          • Bart says:

            Absolute rubbish. What the record shows is a pattern of a long term trend with an approximately ~60 year periodic component riding on top. That pattern was laid in well before CO2 concentration increased suddenly in the mid-20th century. You cannot have an effect that precedes cause.

            You have been snookered.

      • Ross Brisbane says:

        Absolute rubbish. As we say in Australia – we’ll see your pigs fly. The flies are on you – not me. Perhaps the fly in your own ointment is the SHRINKING SEA ICE AROUND ANTARCTICA – a RECORD LOW since 1979!

        A RECORD LOW of SEA ICE since 1979!

        A RECORD LOW of SEA ICE since 1979!

        Bingo fella, bingo!

        Let it sink in…………………………….

        http://www.smh.com.au/environment/as-australia-scorches-sea-ice-spread-around-antarctica-hits-a-record-low-20170218-gufxpn.html

  118. paul w shafer phd says:

    There does not seem to be any mention of increases in release og CH4 which unlike CO2 more readily moves from ground level into stratosphere.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, methane is out there. Only a fraction of CO2’s forcing, but lots of research being done on it (especially its leaks from fracking sites) See the IPCC 5AR for its forcing.

      • paul w shafer phd says:

        How about CH4 from melting tundra? CH4 is potentially as big a contributor as jet plane exhaust in stratospnhere abovee polar region. Cell phone towers are definitely heating water vapor and nitrogen above urba
        n areas. Effects are additive

        • D MacKenzie says:

          In what field is your phd in Paul ? It is really hard to take seriously someone who thinks cellphone tower “heating” is significant.

      • barry says:

        CH4 has a short residence time compared to CO2. Google the realclimate articles on it (methane clathrates). They don’t think it’s a big issue.

        • paul w shafer phd says:

          Agaun I am refering to additive or synergistic effects of many different technologies with rspidly increasing population densities in urban hot spots

        • barry says:

          paul,

          You said: How about CH4 from melting tundra?

          That is the subject of the realclimate articles (methane clathrates).

          I’m not sure the other sources are a significant issue.

  119. paul w shafer phd says:

    Also no mention of rapidly increasing microwave concentration in atmospheric heating since 1999.

  120. I wondered what I had been doing while I was sleepwalking recently. Oh, well…

    Hey, it’s nearly 6:30 over here and no February update. What’s going on? Do they let you sleep, too?

  121. ren says:

    In the period of low solar activity temperature anomalies in the stratosphere over the polar circle are very durable.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml

  122. paul w shafer phd says:

    From what I have reviewed, I do not think replacing coal with gas for electrical generation will have any effect on climate changes. There are too mant different technologies contributing to changes in climate which are synergistic

  123. Obama says:

    I watched Bill Nye (The Science Guy) on the Tucker Carlson Show.

    Bill Nye keeps using the phrase of CATASTROPHIC rate of change (that is caused 100% by man). He frames CATASTROPHIC as imminent (like within 10 to 30 years).

    Ignoring the man-caused portion of his claim….What does he mean by Catastrophic rate of change.

    For example, to the warmists here (David Appell) can you tell me the most obvious Catastrophic Climate change that will occur somewhere in North America within the next 50 years? Bill Nye gave no specific examples of this in North America. He did cite that Britain can produce more grapes in England.

    I am curious as to the most obvious Catastrophic Climate Change that will occur in North America in the near future? What is looming on the horizon that we can measure, quantify, and observe that will occur in the next 50 years?

    Again, I am not a scientist but Bill Nye the Science Guy is. Layman are quite confused by all the unclear and muddy and ambiguous claims and terminology.

    • ren says:

      What tells us the temperature drop in the North Pacific?
      That this year will be abundant fish catches on this basin.
      http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.2.27.2017.gif

    • pochas94 says:

      Bill Nye”
      “CATASTROPHIC rate of change”

      The operative word is “change,” as in $$$$$$$$$

    • Bill nye isn’t a scientist. He is a television host of a kid show. that likes brainwashing little kids into thinking that global warming is catostrophic to obtain funding. He has the comprehension of a third grader when it comes to climate change just like his best friends al gore and Barack Obama

      • Yes bill nye is a very smart man but when it comes to climate change he is either:

        A: really dumb
        B: purposefully lies to the public to obtain his funding by writing books and talking junk science to children
        C. Is forced to do it because he doesn’t want to lose his job as a “science guy”

        I have a good feeling it’s choice letter “a” Lol

    • barry says:

      Catastrophic has one meaning (disastrous/calamitous) in social conversation and a different meaning in science (sudden change/disturbance). I don’t know what context Nye was using in the vids, but as he is a communicator of science to lay audiences, I suspect he meant the former, or a combination of both.

      • Obama says:

        As a layman, why can I not a get a clear answer to my question re: the disastrous consequences of man-caused climate change?

        I have a very simple and basic question. Let’s assume the warmists are right. Let’s assume the science is settled.

        In the next 50 years. In North America. What is the most obvious climate disaster that will take place because of man-caused CO2? Most obvious and most disasterous consequence of global warming/climate change in North America in the next 50 years? With 80%+ probability of it happening. (I am not even asking for 95% confidence – I am asking for an 80% probability). Be specific, measurable, and accountable.

        Why can’t I get a clear, accountable, measurable, quantifiable answer to my question?

        So freakin’ frustrating.

        • Lewis says:

          Obama,

          The answers, all being theoretical, include these

          Rising ocean levels, inundating NYC, Miami and New Orleans among others.

          A northward moving temperate zone, with associated movement north of bugs – mosquitoes (as if there aren’t any in the north)

          Changing weather patterns which will cause agricultural changes.

          And, obviously, more and more weather (said that way intentionally)

          From these the alarmists will propose more and more controls over industrial society. The end result is the totalitarianism of a total administrative state. Where your efforts go to pay those who take from your efforts to give to themselves. Very much a feudal society in effect.

          Which is why we elected Trump and dumped so many Democrats.

          • Obama says:

            Not bad. Thank you. But can the WARMISTS be more specific. Such as:

            1) Rising ocean levels to what extent (be measurable)? How much faster rate than the past 50 years? Will it be drastically faster rise than last 50 years? If so, how much? A RANGE IS FINE – I’m not looking for precision but something accountable and measurable.

            2) Let’s use Mosquitos as the proxy. Where, what city? What city will see more mosquitos in the future than the past 50 years? Is there a way to quantify this to be accountable in the forecast?

            3) Can you describe more specifically where the Agriculture will be impacted the most? Is there some region of North America that will see drastic changes in Agriculture? And can you be more specific as to what that drastic change will look like?

            4) More weather? I assume extreme weather. Will there be more tornados and more powerful hurricanes? It is my understanding that North America has not experienced an increase in powerful tornados and powerful hurricanes so far.

            WARMISTS, can you please help fill in the details. These are very reasonable and basic questions. I’m not a scientist. I’m an accounting/finance professional that lives in a world that measures and is transparent and is accountable to budgets, plans, and forecasts. Climate Science seems very vague and opaque, filled with lots of technical obfuscation.

        • barry says:

          Obama,

          Read the IPCC chapter of future projections. If your questions can be answered, they are answered there. There are global as well as regional projections, but the regional projections are less certain. There are also short-term and long-term projections.

          Short-term projections

          Long-term projections

          Sea level projections

      • Barry, how dare you call Bill Nye a scientist! Bill Nye is not a scientist! Far from it! He is a dumb clown who goes on tv and brainwashes kids about climate change for funding by the government just like his cousin al gore! What he says about climate change is far from true! Can’t wait to see that guys career slip away! The guys a flat out moron!

  124. paul w shafer phd says:

    There is NO algorithm or formula which determines the additive or synergistic effects of all the technological inpuys which avtually are vausing climate vhange.

  125. ren says:

    A strong magnetic storm will change the weather. Circulation to the north again will accelerate.
    http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_kp_3d.gif?

  126. Kasuha says:

    Found a nice summary of the events.

    http://imgur.com/gallery/mpUge

  127. AaronS says:

    Wow… seems to be a long delay on temp update relative to post automated standard. I wonder if they are double checking something odd or what.

    • barry says:

      Roy has said the computations take much less time with the new UAH version 6. But the process is not automated (as far as I know). They may simply be busy.

  128. Jimmbbo says:

    Ooohh… Your “fan” needs a safe space, an hour of pet therapy and a coloring book with crayons…

  129. bill says:

    Triggered!

    That guy must be fun at parties.

  130. Walt Allensworth says:

    Barbra Streisand, is that you?